
Glass. 



-_ 



Book 



AES SIGNATUM 



BY 






.V- 



T. LOUIS COMPARETTE 







PRICE, ONE DOLLAR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS 



THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY 

BROADWAY AT 156th STREET 

NEW YORK 

1919 




T.RMARVIN, 
■■Kg! PRINTERS l S 



ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY COPIES 
REPRINTED FROM 
IIIK AMERICAN .JOURNAL OF NUMISMATICS 
VOLUME LII 






AES SIGNATUM 

By T. LOUIS COMPARETTE 
I. 

As in almost every other field of human knowledge so in Numis- 
matics there are several unsolved problems which have been discussed 
so often that one feels inclined to make some sort of apology to read- 
ers of a journal when he essays further discussion of them and ven- 
tures yet other solutions. But as a defense of one's temerity in asking 
their attention to further consideration of one of these apparently 
unsolvable problems, one may always urge the very common experi- 
ence that when by general agreement a problem has been practically 
given up as defying solution "in our present state of knowledge' 
somebody promptly puts forth the correct solution, or when something 
is declared impossible to do somebody does it. No hope is entertained 
for such happy results from this paper, which aims at being nothing 
more than suggestive. 

Among the difficult subjects with which the student of Roman 
coinage has long struggled is the perplexing question of the origin and 
use of that considerable number of large bronze bars that have been 
found in various parts of Italy and generally known as aes signatum, 
a question which seems to be almost as far from a satisfactory answer 
as it was before a large number of distinguished scholars had made it 
the subject of thorough investigations. And, indeed, no explanation of 
these bars may ever be given that will appear to be so sensible as to merit 
generally even temporary approval, yet it will always be difficult for 
the student of Roman coinage to pass over them without turning 
serious attention to the problems they give rise to, so irresistible is the 
challenge their great size and the elusive enigma of their apparently 
significant types make to prove or disprove their purely monetary pur- 
pose on the one hand and the meaning of several of those types on the 
other. In the preceding decade the question of the aes signatum came 
prominently to the front again after for a number of years scholars had 
apparently concluded that the principal questions of their origin and 
use had been satisfactorily answered. Few numismatists, if any, doubted 



ii Aes Signatum 

the identity of the heavy bars as specimens of the first Roman coinage. 
For Pliny tells us, on the authority of Timaeus, that after the Romans 
had used for an indefinite period amorphous lumps of bronze for money 
King Servius Tullius issued a currency of bronze marked with a type — 
Servius primus signavit aes. Now here was a number of large bronze 
pieces marked, some of them, with very interesting types, and with con- 
siderable alacrity numismatists and historians came to the conclusion 
that these bars were specimens of that early coinage. Furthermore, 
amorphous lumps of bronze were found in the territory of ancient Rome 
and Etruria — the aes rude of Pliny or rather of Timaeus ! Early tra- 
dition was seemingly corroborated by extant monuments and in turn the 
two classes of objects, otherwise so puzzling, were as completely identi- 
fied by statements of ancient writers. The reciprocal nature of the evi- 
dence made for conviction and if it did not silence interrogation it did 
restrict the field of investigation. Then, too, the great authority of sev- 
eral modern savants, among them Prof. Mommsen, was added to increase 
the already general belief that these bars were issued for monetary use, 
were in fact specimens of Rome's earliest coined money, which remained 
in use for some time after the introduction of coins proper by the 
Decemvirs. 

In later discussions, however, there have accumulated numerous 
objections, and some of them apparently unanswerable, to these earlier 
explanations of the bars, and the objections have gone so far as not only 
to deny their identity with the aes signatum but also to reject the theory 
that they were of state origin or intended for use as money. But these 
objections have not been followed by more satisfactory explanations of 
the bars, though new theories have not been wanting. Because of the 
doubts thus raised, and probably also because of a certain reluctance on 
the part of many to give up as unrelated to the Roman series pieces 
long regarded as forming one of the most important links in its history, 
the remarkable theories of Dr. Haeherlin in his monograph on Die Sys- 
tem at ik des alt est en romischen Miinzwesens have attracted the greatest 
attention and in the main have apparently been accepted by many nu- 
mismatists. 

The various theories that have been hitherto advanced to explain 
these bars may be comprehended under two general heads : 

A. State issues for monetary purposes. 

1. Legal coins. 

2. Bars of legal coin-metal; for 



flv *Pr*T>*ter 

NOV 25 1921 



Aes Signatum 3 

(a) various ceremonial and sacred uses; 

(b) substitutes for legal coins ; and 

(c) use in large transactions. 

B. Private issues. 

1. Private coins. 

2. Bars of bronze for export. 

The explanation of the bars which I shall venture to suggest has 
grown out of a distrust of the authenticity of the literary tradition as 
well as out of the conviction that such pieces were, if not impracticable, 
yet unnecessary for use as money in Roman territory at the time of their 
issue, while their types, I believe, warrant their attribution elsewhere 
than to a mint. It is with the utmost diffidence that an attempt is made 
to give the grounds for these views. 

II. 

The literary tradition in regard to the first issue of money by the 
Romans has unmistakably been a controlling influence over those who 
have associated these bars with the monetary system of Rome, whether 
they have held them to be examples of the early aes signatum or an echo 
of that enigmatical coinage issued in later times. For if we take into 
consideration how recalcitrant the bars have proved at every attempt to 
account for types and fix the monetary function of those varieties that 
plainly belong to a late period when Rome was issuing coins properly so 
called, we are almost compelled to conclude that without being preju- 
diced by the literary tradition no numismatist would have thought of re- 
garding them as money, much less as coins. 

The authenticity of the literary tradition, therefore, becomes of 
great moment when one would propose a theory of the origin and pur- 
pose of the bars. And this question of authenticity is a delicate one. 
For experience has shown that in almost every tradition, however ab- 
surd it has been made by distortions and foolish additions, there is gen- 
erally a kernel of historic truth. If, therefore, the statements of Varro, 
Pliny, and Plutarch could be shown to be based upon a proper tradition 
one would hestitate to reject the theory that these large quadrilateral 
bars are examples of the earliest Roman coinage they mention, or had 
some historical relation to that coinage, though the tradition does not 
state that the aes signatum was of quadrilateral form and though the 
types of the extant bars do not conform to the meager descriptions riven 
bv those writers. 



* Aes Signatum 

The few statements that have come down to us regarding the begin- 
nings of Roman coinage afford but little material for determining 
whether we have to deal with an actual tradition, as the term is gener- 
ally understood, or, as in the accounts of other Roman institutions, with 
the invention, at a comparatively late period, of some fertile imagina- 
tion. But if, as seems to be the case, Timaeus of Tauromenium, is the 
earliest writer to give an account of that alleged coinage, then there is 
loom for grave doubts, owing to his unfavorable reputation as a his- 
torian. And while it cannot be established beyond dispute that Timaeus 
was the sole authority upon whom the Roman writers depended for 
their account, yet what evidence we have for the source of the supposed 
tradition points to the Tauromenitan. 

Now Pliny mentions Timaeus as the authority for the story in a 
well-known passage which is one of the chief literary evidences for the 
Servian coinage: N.H. XXXI II, 3 — Servius rex primus signavit aes; 
antea rudi usos Romae Timaeus tradit. Signatum est nota pecudum 
unde et pecunia appellata. While Pliny refers to Timaeus as his au- 
thority for the account, yet it does not necessarily follow that he drew 
it directly from the writings of Timaeus ; it is rather more probable that 
he found the passage in Varro 's Antiquitates from which he is known to 
have copied so freely ; and that impression is further confirmed when one 
compares Pliny's brief statements about the types of the Servian coin- 
age with allusions to them in extant works of Varro and notes the simi- 
larity of expression. For example the expressions in Varro 's Be Re 
Rustica, II. 1, 9: . . . quod aes antiquissimtim , quod est f latum, pecore 
est notatum; and Be Vit. P.R.I. (Nonius, p. 189) aut bovem aut 
ovem aut vervecem hahet signum, probably disclose where Pliny got his 
statement: Servius rex ovium boumque effigie primus aes signavit (1: 
Pliny, N.H. XVIII, 12) as well as the quotation given above. And for 
the same reasons the statements of Plutarch, such as Poblicola 11 — 

— T&tv vofXLCfjLarcov tols TraXaiOTaTOt^ ftovv eireyapaTTOV r\ TrpdjSarov rj avv — are likely 

to have been extracts from Varro 's w 7 orks, from which he also drew 
heavily, though perhaps indirectly, for his material on the early history 
and life of the Romans. Of course, if Pliny did copy his account from 
Varro there can be little doubt that he found the statement there also 
that Timaeus was the authority for it, and that is the commonly accepted 
view. On the other hand, that Timaeus was the sole authority- for the 
story cannot be established, but that he was the chief authority seems 
quite beyond doubt; for in spite of his peculiar methods, or lack of 



Aes Signatum 5 

method, in compilation it is unlikely that Pliny would have failed to 
mention a better, particularly some Roman, source for the story had such 
been known to him. 

The name of Timaeus in connection with the tradition casts sus- 
picion upon its authenticity and brings up the question whether we have 
not to deal with a pure invention. It seems to be the view of Prof. Pais 
that Timaeus was romancing on the subject of the Servian coinage and 
that Varro either accepted the fiction or followed the example thus set 
him. 1 And it is, moreover, just the sort of historical invention we should 
expect from Timaeus, judging from ancient, and also modern criticism 
of his works. For instance, it would agree with the estimate Polybius 
gives us of Timaeus in his Twelfth Book, wherein, though perhaps in- 
spired to some degree by personal motives, he yet successfully impeaches 
him of lack of conscientious scruple for historical truth, and also of a 
readiness to publish as facts his personal views falsely authenticated by 
fabricated conversations and imaginary monuments. Prominent among 
the vices Polybius convicts Timaeus of is his lack of reliability when 
dealing with the origin, primitive history, and peculiar customs of peo- 
ples. Illustrations of this pseudo-antiquarian interest of Timaeus are 
given by Polybius in which he shows that the writer was either unpar- 
donably ignorant or deliberately mendacious, with the weight of evi- 
dence preponderantly in favor of the latter. 

Because of this tendency to write with confidence about what he 
did not know or to misapply the knowledge he had gathered Polybius 
particularly impugns the value of Timaeus 's "account of Libya, Sar- 
dinia, and, above all, of Italy" — a hint which is of special importance in 
connection with the subject of this investigation. In a word, Polybius, 
one of the most careful historians of antiquity, charges that Timaeus 
had no hesitancy to resort to fiction and deliberate falsehood. Strabo 
also has several times questioned the accuracy of Timaeus 's statements 
on important matters, and likewise Diodorus Siculus ; while among mod- 
ern critics his value as a historian is summed up by Mommsen who says 
of him: "He was one of the historians who upon no matters are so well 
informed as upon things unknowable." 

Such was the character of the historian to whom we apparently owe 
the earliest known account of the coinage by Servius, the perplexing aes 

1 Pais Storia d. JR. I, 2, p. 406, n. 2. Mi limito solo a notare die nulla vieta pensare che Timeo 
abbia favoleggiato sulle monete di Servio e che alia sua volta fosse seguito in questo caso da 
Varrone. 



5 Aes Signatum 

signatum. And while Timaeus may have gathered his account from cur- 
rent tradition, yet he was plainly not incapable of inventing it, and if 
sufficient motives can be found for such a course, I believe that we are 
warranted in concluding that he did invent the story; and for a writer 
like Timaeus the motives were not wanting. 

The conditions under which he wrote were such as to invite extrav- 
agance from a pen uncontrolled by severe regard for historic truth. The 
steady advance of the Romans toward the Greek cities of Italy, and es- 
pecially the defeat of Pyrrhus, had greatly impressed the eastern Greeks 
and created a keen interest in the new power rising in the West. But the 
history of the Romans was but little known to the Greeks ; it had never 
been written. Fully conscious of all this Timaeus, probably the first to 
write a history of the Romans 1 , wrote the early history of the city of 
Rome; and the opportunity w T hich a new field and a keenly interested 
reader offered his style, it was Asiatic, 2 was not lost by one so apparently 
ready to sacrifice historic truth to lively narrative. 

The immediate inspiration for an account of Rome's first attempt 
at coining money would have been readily given by the interest which 
may well have been aroused by the introduction of the first, the well- 
known heavy bronze, coinage (B. C. 335), and later (B. C. 269) of the 
first silver coinage by the Romans ; for both of those coinages were intro- 
duced in the lifetime of Timaeus. 

Furthermore, the chief motive of the fabrication, if such it was in 
substance, and the sources of some' of the material that was woven into 
it, are perhaps not far to seek. It is well known that very much of the 
early history of Rome, as we find it recorded by Livy and other writers, 
is not authentic, some of it having been invented by early annalists to 
explain existing institutions while much of it was undoubtedly appro- 
priated or imitated from the earlier history of other great states, espe- 
cially of Athens. In particular Professor Pais points out how T the Hel- 
lenic and Roman historians copied their accounts of the reign of Servius 
Tullius from the record of the legislation of Solon, 3 who was almost his 

1 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, I. 6. 2 Cicero, Brutus, 325. 

3 Pais. Storia di Roma, I, 2, p. 570: — Xella Storia di Servio Tullio e lecito forse constatare 
anche altre correnti elleniche. Questo re, die sostituisce ordinamenti timoeratici alia antica 
costituzione genocratica, che abolisce l'usura, distribuisce le terre ai poveri, favorisce gli schiavi, 
che e autore del censo, della legge agraria, di contratti, che pubblica le sue leggi, dal lato storico 
e cronologico e una copia di Solone, che visse verso gli stessi decenni e che fu realmente l'autore 
della " seisachteia," Solone anzi, stando alia storia tradizionale, sarebbe stato l'autore in genere di 
tutti i provvedimenti che vengono pure attribuiti al sesto re romano. Si mirava ad attribuire anche 
a Roma i f'atti pin salienti della storia ateniese, della citta principe della Grecia. 



Aes Signatum 7 

contemporary. And since one of the important features of the legisla- 
tion of Solon was the reform of the monetary system of Athens, so in the 
parallelism an epoch-making monetary event was needed for the reign 
of Servius. For that purpose the story attributing the first coinage of 
money by the Romans to that king served well indeed. 

The parallelism is further established by the general character of 
the types attributed to the first coinage by the Romans wherein the ac- 
count follows rather faithfully the ancient legend about the first Athen- 
ian coin- types. For there was a tradition, mentioned by Plutarch and 
Pollux, that the earliest coin-type of Athens was an ox. The types of 
the supposed aes signatum included the ox, hog, and sheep. The greater 
variety of types assigned to the earliest Roman coinage might well be 
due to what was doubtless a simple fact and well known, that at an early 
period, perhaps in the regal period, and probably for some time there- 
after, the wealth of a Roman consisted of lands — he was locupletes — 
and his ready funds, of cattle, sheep, and hogs ; with the latter, for in- 
stance, he paid his fines: multaeque dictions ovium et bovum, (quod turn 
erat res in pecore et in locorum possessionem, ex quo pecuniosi et locu- 
pletes vocabantur) non vi et suppliciis coercebat. Cic. De Leg, II, 9 ;) ] — 
and thus to represent Rome's first coined money as reproducing in its 
types the animals that before had been used as money would not only 
parallel the early Athenian tradition but by showing an apparent devel- 
opment from earlier Italian conditions would give the bit of " history" 
a desirable plausibility. 

Now if there is some ground to suspect the authenticity of the story 
preserved by the writers because of the character of the earliest known 
source of their statements, there is another fact that must not be left 
out of consideration and one that cannot but cause grave doubt as to the 
truth of the supposed tradition. This fact is that no specimens of 
Roman bronze coins have come to light that correspond either as to 
types (with a possible single exception) or to period of origin with the 
aes signatum of that tradition. We have one specimen with an ox-type 
on both sides, but it is evident, and so agreed, that the piece is not Roman 
but Greek in style of art nor is it of earlier origin than the first issues of 
the Roman heavy round coins, probably not so early. As is well known, 
owing to the ancient practice of burying coins and other objects of value, 
no other class of monuments relating to the history of man exists in 

1 See also Varro, De H. It. II, 1, 9: — Multa etiam nunc ex vetere institute- bubus et ovibus 
dicitur. 



8 Aes Sigxatum 

greater numbers than, or in so nearly unbroken series as, coins. Speci- 
mens are extant of what was doubtless the very earliest issues of coins in 
western Asia and Europe about 700 B.C., remains of what could hardly 
have been very considerable coinages. And while doubtless specimens 
of the first and scanty issues of certain states are yet wanting, still it is 
almost impossible to point to an ancient coinage that was extensive or 
long continued of which specimens are not extant and sometimes in enor- 
mous numbers. If, now, we accept the traditional date for the begin- 
ning of Rome's first coinage, the so-called aes signaium, or if the first 
issue of that coinage be attributed to the period of the Decemvirs, then 
for at least a century or until the accepted date (B. C. 335) when the 
prow-series was first issued, that rising state issued coins bearing the 
types of the ox, hog, and sheep ; and since, we must infer, Rome issued 
no other bronze coins, we should be compelled to conclude that the an- 
nual coinage of such money was considerable, while the aggregate volume 
that would naturally accumulate in the course of so long a period would 
necessarily become enormous. Yet no examples of that alleged early 
coinage, no pieces bearing such types and attributable to that period, 
have ever come to light! And there is no reason why specimens of it 
should not have been found in buried hoards and sacred deposits that 
have been unearthed in Italy. In fact we have many specimens of 
what numismatists choose to call the earlier aes rude, mere amorphous 
lumps of bronze. And if these lumps of bronze do represent the aes 
rude of the tradition then we are in the singular position of having ex- 
amples of the very earliest and crude Roman metallic money, but prob- 
ably none of the later money bearing a mark (signum). This would cer- 
tainly be a rather unusual situation ! 

This failure of the finds of ancient coins in Italv to corroborate the 

t, 

statements of the writers as to the aes sig nation, while in a way negative 
evidence, yet when considered in connection with other arguments, can 
hardly fail to prove damaging to any theory that in this tradition relat- 
ing to Rome's first coinage there is a kernel of truth. 

So much for the supposed tradition which certain writers have pre- 
served in regard to the first issue of money by the Romans. The tenta- 
tive conclusions reached as to the authenticity of that tradition cannot 
but be in a measure confirmed, or weakened, by consideration of some of 
the arguments by which investigators have sought to establish the iden- 
tity of extant bars with the aes signatum of the writers or at least to 
show that thev were somehow historicallv related thereto, and also bv a 
study of those bars themselves. 



Aes Signatum 9 

III. 

The numerous varieties of extant bars do not admit of satisfactory 
classification on the basis of chronology, composition or any other prin- 
ciple on which coins are generally classified, except in part by the unsat- 
isfactory geographical distribution, determined, not as in the case of 
coins, by the known or probable places of issue, but merely by the gen- 
eral locality in which they have been discovered. Thus Dr. Haeberlin in 
his monumental work on the Aes Grave makes a classification of them 
that represents fairly the consensus of opinion on the subject; his three 
classes are: 

1. The north Etruscan bars, with iron alloy. 

Types: dead branch (ramo secco) or plain. 

2. The decorated bars of northern Central-Italy. 

Types: fish-skeleton, dolphins, twigs with leaves, and crescents. 

3. The Romano-Campanian bars, of which there are so far known nine 

varieties. 

Types : 1. Eagle on f ulmen. — Pegasus ; EOMANOM. 

2. Shield. —Shield. 

3. Sword. — Scabbard. 

4. Barley-ear. — Tripod. 

5. Anchor. — Tripod. 

6. Trident. — Caduceus. 

7. Cocks and stars. — Rostra and dolphins. 

8. Ox. —Ox. 

9. Elephant. — Sow. 

This classification has almost no scientific basis and is at most a 
mere convenience of questionable value. For provenience alone is not 
a safe guide to the actual origin of antiquities as has been shown in 
more than one instance, and strikingly by the error of attributing the 
thousands of Greek vases found in Etruria to local makers. It is im- 
probable that the bronze bars found in Etruria and elsewhere in Italy 
present a case parallel to that of the vases, but the mistake made with 
the latter may well be taken as a warning. And such a caution gains 
some force when it is considered that in the case of groups 1 and 2 there 
is not a single type that can be brought into relation with an Etruscan 
community or legend ; while the bars of group 3 have been ascribed to the 
Roman mint at Capua chiefly because the artistic quality of the types 
forbids their attribution to Roman engravers. This attribution Dr. 
Haeberlin has sought to establish on numismatic and historical evidence, 
but his arguments are hardly convincing. 



10 Aes Signatum 

In the various discussions of these bars a number of their salient 
features have been brought out and emphasized, more especially those 
which must be taken into account on the theory that the bars are coins 
or in some way by law or custom connected with the Roman monetary 
system. The mere statement of these facts will not only show why ex- 
planations of these great bars have been so varied, having run, in fact, 
the whole gamut of possibilities from state-issued coins down to 
mere bars of bronze produced by private enterprize ; but it will also pre- 
sent succinctlv the chief factors that must be taken into consideration in 
every attempt to arrive at an explanation of them. The more important 
if not all of the facts are : 

1. The weights of the bars vary greatly, and they are not adjusted to the 
standard unit of Roman bronze coinage, nor to that of any other 
Italian community. 

2. The composition of the bars differs widely, some having large propor- 
tions of iron and little or no lead, others a large percentage of lead 
and no iron, while still others have varying proportions of tin and lead. 

3. The artistic style of the types on several examples shows unmistakably 
the work of Greek artists and in no case has anything in common with 
Roman die engraving. 

4. Only one of the bars bears' an inscription, which is ROMANOM. 

5. The majority of the bars have been found in a fragmentary state, 
deliberately broken it has been claimed and such is apparently the 
case — a purely incidental fact but one of which much has been made 
by the advocates of the theory that they were meant for use as money. 

Certain alleged characteristics of the Servian Aes signatum 
and the necessary qualities of Roman coins, which the bars do 
not possess, are : 

1. Domestic animal types are found exclusively on but one bar. 

2. Archaic art is not found in any of the types. 

3. Marks of value do not occur. 

4. No recognized coin-types of Rome or of any other Italian community 
are found on any of them — but one of the bars bears the same devices 
as are found on the coins of two Greek communities of Italy, the barley- 
ear and tripod. 

The above statements take into consideration all of the bars usually 
designated Aes signatum. And there is no reason why they should not 
be considered as a whole. For with the possible exception of a single 
series, those with the so-called ramo secco types, these bars cannot be 



Aes Signatum 11 

classified chronologically into widely separated groups ; they are for the 
most part contemporary. Willers places the issue of the Fischgrate bars 
between B. C. 325 and 250, while two other varieties, the one with the 
crescent-shaped types, the other with "marks of value" (PL VIII, 1 
and 2), he dates to almost the same period, i. e., B. C. 300-250. While 
I believe there are good reasons to doubt that the production of the bars 
ceased round B. C. 250, it is very probable that the terminus post quern 
given by Willers is approximately correct. And it is generally conceded 
that the bars which bear types in the fine style of Greek art belong to 
about the same period, being assigned by most writers to B. C. 312 to 
269. So, then, if the bars belong to the same general period and espe- 
cially if they were state issues for any special purpose, we should be justi- 
fied in expecting them to possess common characteristics as do the coins 
of several cities in the same country and of the same period. 

The bars that have received by far the most attention are the so- 
called Romano-Campanian group, evidently because their splendid 
types seemed to assure for them a noble origin and purpose and appar- 
ently afforded, in some cases at least, historical and other data, while 
without doubt the un-Roman, plainly Greek, art of their types gives rise 
to special difficulties. It is with these nine bars that Dr. Haeberlin deals 
so ingeniously in his Systematik, where he presents a theory that at pres- 
ent overshadows all other explanations of them. Some of the main 
points of Dr. Haeberlin 's theory in regard to the origin and use of these 
particular bars are in substance as follows : 

1. They date between 312 and 269 B. C. 

2. They were issued by the State. 

3. They are to be regarded as successors of earlier and cruder bars — als 
die verfeinerten Nachfolger der alten Rohbarren zu denken seien. 

4. They were issued from the mint at Capua, which was served by Greek 
artists. 

5. Seven of the bars were issued in connection with as many series of 
coins proper. 

6. They were not coins, but bars of coin-metal, the fineness of which was 
guaranteed by the State's type — bestehen die campanischen Barren 
aus Milnzmetall. 

7. They were intended to serve all the purposes that the earlier aes rude 
and cruder aes signatum had served, such as (a) monetary purpose; 
consisting of coin-metal and issued by the state the bars possessed the 
proper qualities of money — sie besitzen demnach die wesentlichen vom 



12 Aes Signatum 

Gelde zu erfordenden Eigenschaften und wenn es neben ihnen hein 
gemunztes Geld gegeben hatte, so ivaren sie unzweifelhaft geeignet an 
Geldesstatt zu dienen; (b) ceremonial purposes, in transactions of 
emtiovenditio per aes et libram, maneipatio, and for aera stipata, and 
possibly the fragments for tesserae hospitales. 

As to the period when these bars had their origin there will be no 
dispute, for the artistic style of their types bring them well into the 
fourth century. But on nearly all the other points of Dr. Haeberlin's 
treatise there is room for endless argument. Thus we know nothing of 
the earlier crude bars to which these Campanian examples are supposed 
to have succeeded; and that such bars had ever been issued in southern 
Italy seems to have been inferred from the existence of cruder ones 
found further north. And yet, while the types of the latter are less elab- 
orate and significant, and perhaps less artistic, than those of the nine 
bars in question, it is by no means certain that the northern bars are of 
very much earlier date. 

As to his contention that the bars were issued by the state and from 
a government coinage mint, that is established by the relationship 
claimed for several of them with certain series of alleged Roman silver 
and bronze coins. This connection is based largely upon internal evi- 
dence afforded by the types. Both of these questions will come up in 
the discussion of the types of some of the bars and might, therefore, be 
passed over here. But there are one or two general observations bearing 
upon that question that may as well be made now. 

The evidence upon which their state origin is chiefly based is ap- 
parently the presence of the inscription ROMANOM on one variety 
of bar, the one with the eagle-pegasus types. That inscription has been 
the real nexus between the literary tradition about an early aes signature 
and these great quadrilateral bricks. Romano-Campanian silver coins 
of about the same period bear the genitive case form ROMANO and it 
has been generally accepted that the inscription on the bar pointed to 
the same authority. But the presence of that inscription on a single 
variety of the bars can be used as evidence against, as well as for, the 
view that they were issued by Roman state authority; perhaps with even 
greater force against it. For the presence of the inscription on but one 
variety does not point to an identical authority for the issue of all of 
them ; it rather suggests different sources. Had all the nine bars of the 
^Romano-Campanian" group been issued from the Capuan mint and 
within a very brief period of years (B. C. 312 to 269), as Dr. Haeberlin 



Aes Signatum 13 

contends, it seems incredible that there should not have been greater 
consistency in the use of inscriptions. This objection gains force when 
it is considered that the inscription ROMANOM is found on the only 
bar that bears what might then have been recognized as a Roman type, 
the eagle and fulmen of Jupiter. Were that inscription found upon one 
of the bars with apparently non-Roman or non-Campanian types the 
exception could then feebly be explained as having been necessary in 
order to guarantee its Roman origin. 

It is difficult, therefore, to see how this inscription can be regarded 
as evidence that the bar was issued by Roman state authority. Another 
view of the significance of that legend will be given below where the 
eagle-pegasus bar is discussed. But whether the meaning of the eagle- 
pegasus types and ROMANOM there given be acceptable or not the ob- 
jections to the usual interpretation of the legend as designating the 
Roman state authority are too serious to be overlooked. 

Attention also may be called to the frequent changes in the types 
of both the coins proper and of the bars which the theory of Dr. Haeber- 
]in requires. For according to that theory there were six radical changes 
in the types of the bronze coins issued by Rome from the Capuan mint 
in the short period between B. C. 312 and 269, and one of the series was 
issued in two varieties ; while in connection with each series of coins a 
bar of distinct type was issued. This frequent change of types is not 
only "remarkable and almost without parallel in any other country, but 
such a practice is decidedly un-Roman. The subsidiary bronze coins 
of many of the Greek states show great variety of types, but it is ques- 
tionable if in any place the changes followed in such rapid succession as 
that supposed for these heavy bronze coins of much higher value and 
which, at first certainly, were not subsidiary. In the case of the undis- 
puted Roman bronze coinage the practice was just the opposite. For 
the types of the prow-series persisted for centuries. Moreover, in the 
case of the bars, that rapid succession of new types is carried still fur- 
ther, for Dr. Haeberlin holds, that in addition to the seven bars issued in 
conjunction with and as a part of as many series of silver and heavy 
bronze coins, two additional bars were issued within the same period with 
new types commemorative of historical events ! Such a view of the pro- 
duction of the bars is no less discordant than their novel devices with 
that spirit of Roman conservativeness that, it is claimed, would not em- 
ploy the new bronze coins for ceremonial and religious uses because they 
were an innovation (eine Neuerung). 



14 



Aes Signatum 



Among numismatists the view has generally prevailed that the bars, 
were issued for use as money and are either coins, the aes signatum, or 
at least money in the wider sense of the term; and their efforts have 
chiefly been directed to showing just what the status of this money was 
in the general monetary system of the country. For example, it was 
the opinion of Mommsen that the bars were a sort of coin issued under 
the direction of the Roman government and, with or without legend, 
circulated in about the same manner as the coins proper of later times ; 
while Professor Milani 1 went even further and attempted to fix the de- 
nomination of the bars as Quincussis. Perhaps few persons, if any, 
would still hold to the earlier belief that the bars are coins, but the state- 
ments of some writers about them are unfortunately so ill-guarded as 
to lead one to surmise that their real convictions do not altogether square 
with the theories to which the logic of facts has driven them. But the 
notion that the bars are coins has been necessarily given up because they 
lack the requirements of coins proper, especially of Roman coins. Thus 
their weights are not adjusted to the Roman or any other coinage unit, 2 
so that they could not pass by tale at an average value guaranteed by the 
state, which is the chief function of a coin proper; and they bear no 
marks of value, while from the first Roman bronze coins as well as those 
of other Italian states did bear marks of value. 

The theory, therefore, that the bars are coins has given way to the 
view that they were intended for use as money only in the broad mean- 

1 Rivista Italiana di Numismatica, 1890. 

2 The weights of 25 specimens of the Romano-Campanian bars show a wide variation, the 
discrepancy between the lightest and the heaviest reaching several hundred grammes and is over 
200 grammes above and below the average weight. The following schedule of weights show how 
they vary: 



Type. 



Eagle — Pegasus 1 



2 

3 

4 

Shield — Shield 5 

6 

7 

Sword — Scabbord 8 

9 

Tripod — Anchor 10 

11 

12 

13 



Weight in 
grammes. 

1642.00 

1542.00 
1394.60 

1389.63 

1623.30 

1580.00 

1516.00 

1618.00 

1593.69 

1830.05 

1677.20 

1543.70 

1495.06 



Caduceus — Trident 14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

Cocks — Rostra 19 

20 



Ox — Ox 



21 
22 

23 
24 

25 



Total weight 
Average weight, 1564.39 grammes. 



1686.35 
1679.50 
1628.00 
1614.00 
1141.50 
1525.25 
1491.76 
1790.23 
1624.50 
1389.90 
1347.00 
1746.49 

39,109.71 



Aes Signatum 15 

ing of that term. In this wider sense of money Witters 1 and Dr. Haeber- 
lin 2 hold that the bars are of coin-metal and as such were guaranteed by 
the state, so that they could be used to make payments when it happened 
that no coins proper were at hand. Not very materially different from 
this view is the suggestion of Dr. Regling, 3 who rejects the Haeberlin 
explanation that the bars were also intended for ceremonial uses, but 
agrees that they were a convenient form of coin-metal, of a fineness 
guaranteed by the State's type or the inscription ROMANOM, and were 
intended for use as money, evidently in transactions involving the pay- 
ment of large sums, similar in character to the bars of the precious metals 
issued from the mints of Europe in the Middle Ages — a^view that is per- 
haps influenced by the practices of modern international commerce 
wherein large sums in gold bricks are frequently transferred in the set- 
tlement of trade balances. 

This theory of the bars assumes that the Romans lacked an adequate 
supply of coined money, a condition that must have prevailed also or 
especially in the newly conquered territory ; and so recourse was had to 
issuing of bricks of bullion to eke out the volume of currency ; Nur grosse 
und einschneidende politische Umwalzungen konnten eine f undamentale 
Reform dieses durch den Mangel der Miinze char- 
acterisirten Zustandes Mittelitaliens zur Polge 
haben u.s.w. 4 And this is the only rational ground upon which the theory 
can be based ; for it would be absurd to contend that the people inhabit- 
ing those countries insisted upon retaining a crude and unwieldy form 
of currency when the infinitely greater convenience of coins proper had 
been long known to them or that Rome was ready to humor such an im- 
practicable whim! 

There is, however, no evidence that the volume of coined money was 
inadequate either at Rome or in the conquered territory. With the 
knowledge we have of how in antiquity comparatively backward com- 
munities made use of the coins imported from more advanced states it 
would be a mistake to suppose that Roman domestic trade was served 
only by her own alleged makeshift currency prior to about B. C. 335, 

1 Willers, Numismatische Zeitschrift, 1905, p. 13 f. 

2 Haeberlin, Systematik, p. 57. 

3 Regling, Klio, 1908, p. 501: — Auch der Gesamtsauffassung Haeberlins von den Barren . . . 
vermag ich mich nicht anzuschliessen, halte die Barren vielmehr fur Rohmaterial, das, in hand- 
liche Form gebracht und hinsichtlich der Feinheit als Munzmetall vom Staate durch das Bild 
bezw. die Aufschrift romatstom garantiert, jederzeit als Geld zugewogen werden konnte. 

4 Willers, he. cit. 



16 Aes Signatum 

or thereafter only by her new and proper bronze coinage. The states on 
her narrow confines north and south were at that early period coining 
money, and of the precious metals too ; while the aggressive commerce of 
several great Greek and Asiatic states had pushed its way throughout 
Italy and where that commerce went their gold and silver coins went 
with it. It would certainly be contrary to the usual practices every- 
where, in both ancient and modern times, had the Romans failed to make 
extensive use of coins struck by other peoples. It is more likely that an 
abundant supply of such currency for her domestic trade was a factor 
in postponing somewhat the introduction of a national coinage or in re- 
stricting the national coinage to bronze for so long a period of time ; for 
coins imported through the channels of commerce would be solely of sil- 
ver and gold. 

Furthermore, at the very time when it is urged that these bars were 
being issued by Rome necessarily to supplement the volume of coined 
money, the other States of Italy were evidently well supplied with the 
precious metals. For M. Babelon in discussing the abundance of the 
precious metals in antiquity 1 — in the course of which he makes the inter- 
esting and probably correct statement that the volume of such metals in 
antiquity was likely as great in proportion to the population using money 
coined of gold and silver as it is today, or even greater — in reference 
to Italy shows that the States of the peninsula were not exceptionally 
poor in these nobler metals. For in B. C. 293 Papirius Cursor collected 
a booty of 1,830 pounds of silver in his campaign among the Samnites, 
(cf. Liv. X 46) a very large sum when one considers that Samnium was 
an inland agricultural country and also that the precious metals would be 
the first objects which the populace would endeavor to protect from the 
hands of the invader, so that the Roman general secured a very small 
portion of Samnium 's supply of silver; and it is certainly a safe con- 
jecture that the more powerful Rome was much better supplied with sil- 
ver and gold than was Samnium. 

Even less defensible is the suggestion that these bars were intended 
to facilitate large transactions. For, as Mr. Hill has pointed out, if 
there had been need of pieces of larger value than the heavy bronze coins 
for the occasional payment of large sums, the Roman silver Didrachm 
would have supplied that need far more conveniently than these large 
unwieldy bricks. 2 And it must furthermore be noted that, so far as it is 

1 Babelon, Les Origines de la Monnaie. p. 250ff. 

2 Hill, G. F., Historical Roman Coins, p. 16. 



Aks Signatum 17 

implied that the larger pieces of coin-metal would be more convenient 
than the coins, the bars being only four or five times as large as the libral 
bronze .1* then in circulation offered but slight advantage in that respect 
when considered only in respect of the number of pieces required to make 
up a given sum of money ; and far less convenient when the necessity of 
weighing the bars is taken into consideration. And finally since the 
speed with which a casting mint operated depended more upon the melt- 
ing process than the size of moulds the making of the larger bars instead 
of the libral As could hardly increase the mint's production of money. 

IV. 

The difficulties in the way of proving that these bars were made for 
a money use of any sort are so numerous that inevitably the doctrine 
must be abandoned or greatly modified. And a modification has now 
been suggested in the form of a theory that holds the bars to be a late 
continuation or perhaps revival of the old bar-coinage and issued chiefly 
for certain uses, other than monetary, which had become so deeply rooted 
in popular usage that the conservative spirit of legal and religious prac- 
tices required their continuance. Preeminent among the theories of this 
character is Dr. Haeberlin's, that they were meant to serve those ceremo- 
nial uses which the traditional aes signatum had probably served, such 
as the transactions that only could be legally completed by use of a piece 
of bronze (emtio venditio pt r aes < I libram) and also for religious offer- 
ings (aera stipata). And with this part of his theory the views of Mr. 
Hill substantially agree: "The question of the use of the bricks must, 
therefore, be left open: we cannot disprove the theory that they may 
have been used in large payments, but the theory that they served cere- 
monial purposes is by far the most plausible that has yet been ad- 
vanced. ' n 

This theory of the bars appears to be in no small degree a last resort 
in despair of proving for them a sole monetary function. It is difficult, 
however, to see why the state should find it necessary to issue a special 
bronze piece for such purposes. There is certainly no evidence from 
literary sources that a piece of bronze of any special design, form or 
size was required for these uses ; and as for religious offerings, so far as 
the evidence of what are generally regarded as the finds of sacred de- 
posits gives us any hint, that points to the fact that bronze in any form 
was suitable for such purposes. For these deposits are a jumble of many 
forms and qualities of copper. 

1 Hill, G. F., Joe. tit., p. 17. 



18 Aes Signatum 

On the other hand, so far as the argument is based upon the usual 
conservativeness of a people in customs pertaining to such common mat- 
ters of their daily life as purchase and sale and religious offerings, nine 
of the bars, the so-called Romano-Campanian examples, hardly favor 
such a contention. For in their outward appearance, the feature which 
would most impress the common people, the bars are not of a conservative 
character ; in fact their types are varied and novel and treated in a most 
advanced artistic stvle. Besides, had the state issued bars with a view 
even secondarilv to their ceremonial use, it is almost inconceivable that 
some among so many examples should not have borne a type somehow al- 
luding to such a purpose ; but none of these do. Again, had the state is- 
sued bronze pieces for such uses, the most popular next to a monetary use, 
it is certainly improbable that pieces of such high value would have been 
issued; for the value of these bars runs from four to above five libral 
Asses, pieces whose purchasing power then was the equivalent of sev- 
eral dollars today. Only the prosperous could have afforded to make use 
of such valuable pieces for ceremonial purposes. Had a large number 
of very small bronze pieces come to light in Italy, one should be justified 
in inferring that they had been made for some such popular uses as pro- 
posed for these great bars. 

It is true, on the other hand, that the bars are mostly found in frag- 
ments ; but if it be contended that they were reduced to fragments for the 
use under consideration, the fact would only prove that any piece of 
bronze, however crude it might be, would serve the purpose, and that 
actually pieces much smaller than the extant bars were generally em- 
ployed. And if that had been the case, the fact would have been well 
known to the Roman government, who would certainly not have sanc- 
tioned the issue of pieces too large and valuable for the convenience of 
the masses of the people. 

The objections that have been ure^ed against the theory that these 
bars were issued by the State for ceremonial and religious uses may not 
carry sufficient weight to discredit it entirely, yet until that doctrine 
has been grounded upon some definite proofs it will be impossible to be- 
lieve that the Romans ever incurred the unnecesary expense and went to 
the trouble of issuing a bar that was not needed and in a size that was 
not practicable. 

Y. 

The theory that these bars were produced by private enterprise and 
were intended for use as coins or for foreign commerce has recently 



Aes Signatum 19 

been put forward. Thus in a paper read before the International Con- 
gress of Numismatists at Paris in 1900 (I bronzi quadrilateri delta re- 
publican e la moneta privata dei Romani) Com. F. Grnecchi advanced the 
view that these bricks were not issued by the state; (1) because their 
types do not present the head of a divinity, which is a characteristic of 
the bronze coinage of the Romans; and (2) because they are quadrilat- 
eral in form, while the coins issued by the Roman government, even the 
large Dupondius, Tripondius, and Decussis, we t re round. These bars 
are, therefore, to be considered private coins, a sort of continuation of 
the aes signatum of an earlier period, 1 which is supposed to have been a 
private issue. 

The assumption that the Romans restricted religious types to official 
coins and would have denied the use of such types to private persons 
though the latter were allowed to issue, or were not molested in the prac- 
tice of issuing, coins is without foundation; while at the same time the 
writer seems to hold that such religious character was conferred only by 
the use of the effigy of the divinity and to lose sight of the fact that many 
ancient coin-types present only the symbol of a divinity and are yet 
properly regarded as of religious character; and among the types of 
these bars are a number of objects recognized as symbols of divinities. 
Besides, the cock, hog, elephant, and pegasus types are found on the coins 
of other states of Italy where because of a common inheritance of reli- 
gious and social institutions the types of coins were probably regarded 
much the same as by the Romans. As to Mr. Grnecchi 's argument from 
the quadrilateral form of the bricks, he assumes that the more ancient 
aes signatum of questionable tradition was of private origin, a view that 
contradicts a part of the same literary tradition which he accepts as to 
the existence of that coinage, for Pliny expressly states that it was a 
royal coinage ; and also he assumes that that aes signatum was of quad- 
rilateral form, which is a groundless assumption. 

Least tenable, however, is Grnecchi ? s conclusion that these bricks 
were coins produced by private enterprise. For nothing could be more 
inconsistent with the Roman conception of the State in the fourth cen- 
tury, and probably much earlier, than to permit the individual to compete 

1 Conclusione: questi pezzi, sia pel carattere evidente delle loro impronte, sia per la loro forma, 
non erano moneta ufficiale dello Stato romano. Cosa potevano dunque essere se non moneta 
privata ? 

Come tali non dovevano e non potevano portare impronta religiosa; — lo Stato non l'avrebbe 
permesso — e come tali, conservavano la forma quadrata, quasi in continuazione degli antichi pezzi 
di Aes signatum i quali indubbiamente costituivano la moneta primitiva e privata dei Romani, 



'JO Aes Signatum 

with the sovereign power in the exercise of one of its chief functions — 
that of establishing a system of currency and coining money. Thus the 
theory that these bars were privately issued coins or money would but 
substitute greater problems for the ones whose solution has already 
proved sufficiently difficult. 

Finally, Bahrfeldt (Fine vorUiufige Erorterung der Barrenfrage, 
Berlin 1901) influenced apparently by his recent studies of the large find 
of bars and a great many fragments of bars at Mazin, Croatia, contends 
that they were not coins, either official or private. The objection to re- 
garding them as coins of any sort is based upon the absence of marks of 
value. But the reported 1 view of General Bahrfeldt that they were sim- 
ply ingots of bronze, which formed an article of export to the countries 
that made use of bronze, is, I believe, true in part. But there is no reason 
to believe that they were meant only for export ; while there are reasons 
to believe that the ingots of bronze transported in foreign commerce were 
much larger than these bars. 2 

It appears, therefore, that the various efforts to associate these 
bars with the Roman coinage have served chiefly to emphasize the diffi- 
culties in the way of such explanations of them and to point out how far 
their characteristics remove them from a monetarv use. In the case of 
the types, it is a noticeable fact that, with exception of but one or two 
varieties (such as the Hog-Elephant bar), whose certainly erroneous 
interpretations have been generally accepted, the very few writers who 
have attempted to solve the riddle of their meaning have found them- 
selves compelled to have recourse to broad and general notions, to which 
the types do not with clearness allude, and seldom have found the mean- 
ing in facts and events readily symbolized for the masses of the people 
by such devices as occur on these bars ; whereas antique coin-types, and 
also a rather wide range of purely artistic representations, generally 
have for subjects religious notions, myths, or events that were well 
known to the people and therefore readily suggested by a simple symbol. 

Anv theory of the bars to be worthv of consideration must be free 
of these fundamental grounds of objection. 

1 I have to acknowledge regretfully that I have not had Bahrfeldt's paper to read, but have 
necessarily depended upon brief notices of his argument. 

2 Many large bronze ingots have been found, 19 at Hagia Triada with an average weight of 
29231.6 grammes, and 17 in the sea near Chalkis whose weights range from 5350 to 17000 
grammes; while three Sardinian ingots, which were probably imported from Cyprus, are reported 
as averaging 31233 grammes in weight. See Evans, Corolla Numismatic", p. 358ff. 



AES SlGNATUM '21 

VI. 

On the basis of the artistic character of the types the extant bars may 
be classified into two groups, Greek bars and Italian bars. The former 
embraces the examples, nine in number, with types which are plainly 
the work of Greek artists; while the latter class includes all others, in 
whatever parts of Central Italy and Btruria they may have been pro- 
duced. 

Now, since the former group are plainly the work of Greek artists 
there is that one good reason for looking to Greek communities for their 
origin. Moreover, this group is distinct from the other bars not only in 
respect to their utterly un-Roman types but also as regards their com- 
position. It seems proper, therefore, that the possibility of their having 
originated in Greek conmiunities should be exhausted before we accept 
any theory of them based upon the assumption of their Roman origin. 
And, since the bars have been found almost exclusively in Italy, it is the 
Greek cities of Southern Italy that claim first attention in the search 
for events that might explain the types of this group. So scanty, how- 
ever, is our knowledge of the history of those Greek cities and so 
few the remains of them that an effort to connect these bar types with 
events in their history is bound to be attended by many difficulties. But 
a strong presumption will have been created in favor of such an origin 
for them if in case of even two or three bars it can be shown that we have 
the recognized coin- types or "arms" of some of those cities together 
with an assignable reason for their employment, or if* one can find in the 
history of those Greek communities events which may reasonably be re- 
garded as commemorated by other of the bar-types. It has, therefore 
seemed to me that efforts in that direction were well worth while, and 
some of the results of my researches are here offered. 

TRIDENT— CADUCEUS BAR. 

The Commercial Greatness of Tarentum. 

Plate I. 

This bar probably originated at Tarentum, but since it refers to no 
historical event datable within narrow limits it is impossible to deter- 
mine where it belongs chronologically in the list of bars to be discussed. 
It may as well, however, be treated here, where for certain reasons it 
may also belong. 

The few attempts to explain the types of this bar have been so mani- 
festly unsuccessful that special mention of any of them might well be 



22 A BR SlGNATl M 

omitted; but the views of Dr. Haeberlin deserve notice because of the 
rather forced reasoning by which he endeavors to maintain his general 

theory of the bars and connect this one with a series of alleged Roman 
coins. For it is certainly a curious bit of logic that is employed to show 
that this bar was issued in conjunction with the heavy Janus Mi rcury 
series of coins. In the first place, it is not in this instance the types of 
a silver Didrachm at the head of the series that determines the types of 
the bar, but the type, rather one of the types, of the large bronze As. 
That may not be important, yet elsewhere he seems to attach no little 
importance to the fact that the types of the Didrachrn furnished the con- 
trolling idea for the bar-types. This series of bronze coins Dr. Haeberlin 
holds was issued at Rome. At the same time silver Quadrigati were be- 
ing struck at the Capua mint; and certainly it is very remarkable in 
view of the application of the theory in other cases that the types of this 
bar issued at Capua should be brought into relation with the types of 
the heavy bronze As issued from the mint at Rome and nol with the 
types of the new silver Didrachm brought out at Capua ! And even more 
remarkable is it that while the heavy bronze As bears a Janus head and 
the bar a trident, symbol of Neptune, two of the greater divinities, yet it 
is the lesser Mercury that furnishes the dominant idea of the coin and 
bar. 

Dr. Haeberlin 's interpretation of the caduceus symbol of this bar 
is interesting. Mercury was the god of commerce, especially on land ( ?), 
and that commerce implied established domination of the country in 
which it was carried on; the caduceus, therefore, becomes a symbol of 
Rome's supremacy on land. "Merkurs Walten als GoU< s des Verkehrs, 
wirdim erster Linie auf den Verkehr des Landes bezogen und es symboU- 
zirt daher der Caduceus nacli italischer Denkweise die Herrschaft ilber 
das Land, die im Hinblick auf einen geregelten Verkehr als die befriedete 
Herrschaft zu Lande aufgefasst wird.' The trident of Neptune on the 
other side of the bar, taken as a symbol of the lordship of the sea, supple- 
ments the idea expressed by the caduceus and rounds out the conception 
of Rome's lordship on land and sea. Er (Trident) bildet . . . audi der 
Idee nach . . . zu dem Zeigen Merkurs die erganzende Parallel e. Aus- 
gedruckt sollte werden, dass ein dauemder Zustand geschaffen sei, indem 
Rom in gesamten ihm fortan unterstehenden Bereiclie zu Land und zu 
See eine Herrschaft siegreich und zu dauerndem Frieden bergrilndet 
habe. Evidently the Romans must have been somewhat obsessed by that 
notion of their Herrschaft zur See, however the notion was conceived. 



• Aes Signatum 23 

for Dr. Haeberlin finds it expressed again by the types of the Cocks- 
Rostra bar, a remarkable persistence in an idea that is, as I shall attempt 
to show in connection with the latter bar, purely mythical, and a very 
modern myth at that. 

This bar with the types of a trident and a caduceus alludes to the 
commercial greatness of Tarentum; and of Tarentum 's proud position 
in the commerce of the Mediterranean there can be no dispute; while 
on the other hand there can be no doubt of the appropriateness of the 
two symbols on this bar to express the sentiments of the Tarentines re- 
garding their prosperous commerce. 

There are a number of references among the ancient writers to the 
commercial greatness of Tarentum. Polybius in the first chapter of his 
tenth book draws attention to the splendid harbor and commanding po- 
sition of that city as the chief entrepot for the commerce between Greece 
proper, together with that of the Adriatic, and Italy ; x and of course much 
of the exports of Italy were carried to Greece and to the eastern shores 
of the Mediterranean in the same bottoms that had brought wares to the 
emporium of Tarentum. Even in his own time the favorable position 
of Tarentum insured her a large commerce although it had been greatly 
reduced by the development of the port of Brundisiuin. Morus also has 
preserved the comment of probably another writer on the subject, yet it 
is similar in showing that Tarentum was the commercial centre of a 
vast region extending from the northern Adriatic to Africa. 2 And the 
commercial position due to these natural advantages was in time 
strengthened by the course of events in other parts of Southern Italy. 
For soon after the middle of the fourth century B. C. the pressure of the 
native inland peoples upon the Greek colonies of Italy resulted in the 
capture of several cities on the western coast while those on the southern 
coast suffered the loss of valuable territory and being further menaced 
lost also their commerce which in some cases was very considerable. The 

1 Polybius, X, 1 : BpeVrtoi yap teal AevKavol Kal riva p>epr) rQ>v Aavviwv, en be Ka\aj3pol Kal irXeiovs erepoi 
tovto rb /cXi'/ta ve/xovrai rijs 'IraXtas* 6/x.oiws Se Kal rCou 'EXXTjvidwv irbXeuv 'Prjyiov Kal KavXcovLa Kal AoKpol Kal Kpb- 
rwi>, en be MerairovTiOL Kal Qoijptoi raiJTrjv eire'x ovo '<- T V V irapaXLav, coare Kal roi/s dirb Si/ceXias Kal tovs and rrjs 
'EXXdSos <f>epop.ivovs iiri riva rbirov tCov it poeipTip.e'vwv /car' dvdyKrjp bp/xelu ev reus rCov Tapavrivcov XifieaL, Kal ras d/xei- 
ipeis Kal ras olKovop.'ias irpbs irdvras rods Karexovras Tatirijv rr\v irXevpdv rijs IraXias ev rair-q iroielcrdai rr\ irbXei. . . . 
T&raKrai de Kal irpbs rot>s /caret rbv ' Adpiav Xt/teVas eixpvQs Kal vvv p,e"v, en be /xaWov rjv irpb rod (i. e. before found- 
ing of Brundisium), dirb yap d/cpas, 'lairvyias eoos els HiirovvTa irds irpocrcpepb/JLevos e/c ru>z> dvTiire'pas Kal Kadopp.icrdels 
irpbs T7]i>'lTa\lav els Tapavr" 1 eiroietTO rrjv virepfioX-fjv, Kal raijry (rvvexPV T0 T V TroXei irpbs ras dXXayds Kal p.erade'veis 

OlOV epTTOpli}}. 

2 Florus, I, 18: — Cum magnitudine et muris portuque nobilis, turn mirabilis situ; quippe in 
ipsis Adriatici maris faucibus posita in omnes terras, Istriam, Illyriam, Epirum, Achaiam, Afri- 
can!, Sicilian! vela dimittit. 



24 Aes Signatum 

ruin or weakening of these other Greek centers in Italy seems to have 
proved beneficial to the commerce of Tarentum, which at that period 
reached its greatest extent. 1 

While her advantageous position and fine harbor had much to do 
with the development of Tarentum 's commerce, yet, as is well known, an 
important factor was her large volume of exportable manufactures and 
products besides the grain, wine and oil, which other Greek communities 
in Italy and Sicily exported to the motherland and Asia Minor. Woolen 
fabrics from looms supplied by the flocks of Apulia, her world-renowned 
purple dyes, certain manufactures in bronze, her potteries, and the prod- 
ucts of her fisheries, all combined produced a volume and variety of ex- 
ports of which very few ancient cities could boast. From this extensive 
commerce the wealth of the citv was derived, a wealth that had made 
Tarentum a city of great splendor and made possible a too luxurious 
manner of living. 

Now it w T as no uncommon practice for the Greeks and other peoples 
of antiquity to celebrate in one way or another the sources of their na- 
tional wealth, usually with monuments or hymns in honor of the patron 
divinity. Many instances, too, are found of coin-types which plainly 
refer to the local products that formed the basis of the state's prosperity, 
a very notable instance being the sylphium-plant types on the coins of 
Cyrene. So it need occasion no surprise to find evidence that at least 
individual citizens of Tarentum saw in their very large and profitable 
commerce a just ground for pride and something worthy of commemo- 
ration. The city itself had done a similar thing when it had placed the 
horseman-types on the silver Staters in commemoration of its famous 
cavalry. 

The types of this bar well suit the idea suggested above. Taras, the 
son of Poseidon, had founded Tarentum and the god of the sea was re- 
garded as the patron divinity of the city. This latter fact is officially 
signalized by a remarkable coin type issued soon after the middle of the 
fourth century B. C. in which the youthful Taras is represented as ap- 
pealing to his father, Poseidon, probably on the eve of some crisis in 
state affairs ; while Horace specifically mentions Neptune as the patron 

1 Speck, HanrietegescJnchte des Altertums, II, 467: — Das Griechentum (in Italy) wurde auf 
wenige Platze eingeschrankt, die auch nur mit> Miihe die Angriffe der Barbaren abwehrten. Xnr 
Tarent machte eine Ausnahme in dem allgemeinen Verfall. Es erreichte im 4. Jahrh. die hochste 
stulV seiner Macht. Sein vortrefflicher Hafen, der ergiebige Thunfischfang, die Wollweberei, die 
Purpurfarberei, die Vasenfabrikation zeitigten audi seine wirtschaftliche Blute. 



Aes Signatum 25 

divinity of Tarentum. 1 The trident of Poseidon, therefore, may quite 
properly be taken as an allusion to that city. 

On the other hand, the caduceus of Mercury, patron of merchants, 
on the other side of the brick almost certainly alludes, as had been before 
interpreted, to commerce; and in conjunction with the other facts recited 
above there is surely good ground to believe that it alludes to the flour- 
ishing commerce of Tarentum and not to the negligible trade of a sub- 
jugated small territory. The commerce of Tarentum was chiefly sea- 
borne, with which fact the types of the trident and the caduceus are par- 
ticularly consistent. 

As to the lemnisci or taeniae attached to the trident and the cadu- 
ceus Dr. Haeberlin's confidence that they clinch the argument in favor 
of the view that the devices allude to a victory is hardly well grounded. 
By far the most common use of the vittae or lemnisci was to indicate a 
consecration ; and that is not improbably the meaning of the ribbon and 
crown on the Romano-Campanian silver didrachm to which Dr. Haeber- 
lin refers ; for why should Victory be represented as attaching a symbol 
of victory to such a well-known emblem of victory as the palm-branch ! 
As a sign of consecration the lemnisci or taeniae are frequently referred 
to. In this sense Suetonius refers to their use in marking the consecra- 
tion of Nero's course through the city on his return to Rome from his 
sham artistic triumps in Greece (Nero, 25) ; evidently Tacitus alludes to 
the very same things as w T e find on the coin referred to when he mentions 
the reconsecration of the ground on which Vespasian was about to re- 
build the temple of Jupiter (Hist. IV, 53 : omne spatium . . . evinctum 
vittis coronisque) ; while there are numerous allusions to the fact that 
they were worn by priests and priestesses, carried by suppliants, placed 
on altars and statues of deities, and on the thyrsus carried in the Diony- 
siac procession (Baumeister, Denkm. Abb. 1849). 

If the taeniae on this bar are not to be regarded as merely orna- 
mental, it is most likely that they were meant as a sign of consecration, 
serving to indicate that the artist was employing the caduceus and tri- 
dent with their appropriate religious and symbolic meaning and not 
simply as ornaments. Because the bricks possessed none of the quali- 
ties of coins, whose types were everywhere regarded as sacred, the use 
of such an emblem was the more necessary to give the types significance 
and render the meaning of the combination intelligible. 

1 Horace, Of?. I, 28, 29: — multaeqiie im.ere.es 

wide potest tibi defined aequo 
ah Jove Neptunoqne sacri custode Tarenti. 



26 Aes Signatum 



In the case of the next bar as well as of two or three others the pro- 
posed explanations of the types point to political alliances, real or 
merely formal. And it so happens that Magna Graecia was the most 
fertile field of antiquity- for military and, perhaps, monetary alliances ; 3 
and. what is more important here, many of those alliances were com- 
memorated on the coins of the contracting states. The reasons for these 
alliances are of course well known. For it was not long after the estab- 
lishment of the Greek settlements on the South coast of Italy till the 
danger that for a century and a half threatened them from the interior 
made its appearance. As early as the middle of the sixth century B. C. 
they were driven into some kind of union for mutual help against the 
Lucanians and their other inland neighbors ; and when wealth and power 
had been gained by some of the Greek cities, similar alliances were fre- 
quently formed by two or more for the protection against a more power- 
ful Greek neighbor. Finally, toward the last of their careers as inde- 
pendent states, a number of alliances, as threatening to their liberties 
as helpful against the pressing danger, were contracted with foreign 
princes. It is not difficult, therefore, to realize that that feature of the 
public policy in each of these cities which had to do with its defensive 
alliances was a matter of greatest popular concern; for it involved the 
burning question of their welfare and, at a later period, of their liberties, 
too, as well as the political fortunes of individuals, and the historic cleav- 
age between Doric Tarentum and Achaean Metapontum, Croton and 
Sybaris. 

So scanty are the annals which the historians have preserved of 
those cities that it is verv unlikelv that we have a complete record of the 
unions they formed ; very many of their alliances are known, however, 
from the combined evidence of historians and the coins. The subjoined 
list, though almost certainly incomplete, of some of the better attested 
alliances, because in so many cases corroborated by coins, shows how 
deeply rooted the practice was in their history and gives us a background 
of interesting precedents for the explanations of certain of the Greek 
bars. For while these bars were never issued bv the Greeks for use as 
money and were probably not issued by any State, yet the long standing 
practice of commemorating various sorts of international relations on 
the coins evidently exercised an influence upon the private persons who 

1 Gardner, Greek Coin Types, page 31 . 



Aes Stgxatum 2 



_ t 



did produce the bars ; and the result was a number of types that reflect 
important political events of the time. Instances of such coin-types are : 

B. C. 550-480. General alliance of all the south Italian Greek cities. Attested by their 

coins with the obverse type repeated incuse on reverse. 
Within same period, and attested by coins of the contracting cities, were the alliances of : 
Croton and Sybaris. Croton and DA (ancle ?) i. e.. Messana. 

Croton and Terina. Poseidonia and Sybaris. Pyxus and Siris. 

B. C. 390-388. League of the Greek cities renewed under the leadership of Croton. 

Alliance coin, infant Heracles strangling two serpents. 
380-3<)0. The League again renewed, under leadership of Archytas of Tarentum. 

Federal coinage. Attic obols with types of Athena and Heracles stran- 
gling Xeraean lion. 
388-384. Archadamus of Sparta goes to Tarentum. 

Commemorated by stars of the Dioscuri as symbols on coins, the 
Dioscuri referring to Sparta. 
380. Alexander the Molossian, of Epirus, goes to assist the Italian Greek-. 

Macedonian type of Heracles head on gold coins. 
281. Confederation of Italian states in alliance with Pyrrhus. 

Commemorated by elephant symbol on Tareutine Staters. 
272. Greek cities come under Roman domination as civitates foederqtae. 

Commemorated by Locris on a Stater with Fides crownino- Roma. 



THE TRIPOD AND BARLEYHEAD BAR. 

Alliance Between Croton and Metapontum. 

Plate II. 

Dr. Haeberlin connects this bar with what he calls the Apollo-series 
of coins which the Romans are supposed to have issued from the mint 
at Capua. The series is composed of the silver Diclrachm with types of 
Apollo-head and a horse and a partial series of four bronze coins of 
which the As has an Apollo-head on both sides. The tripod of Apollo on 
the bar furnishes the reason for connecting it with that series of coins. 
The types of the bar, however, seem to have no special meaning, real or 
fanciful, from a Roman point of view. That is specially true of the bar- 
ley ear, of which no explanation has yet been offered. As to the tripod, 
thanks to the wide-spread cult of Apollo a coin-type with that symbol 
of the god can always be explained somehow, wherever it may be found. 
But, not only from the Roman point of view have the types of this bar 
no significance, the situation is not improved if the bar be regarded as 
Campanian in spirit and for use cMefly in Campania. For there seems 
to be no more warrant for the statement that the Apollo-type was spe- 
cially favored in Campania than the claim elsewhere that the Pegasus- 
type is to be identified as the arms, Wappentier, of that country. 



28 AES SlGNATUM 

This bar bears devices that are identical with the long-established 
and well-known coin types of two cities of Magna Graecia. Since the 
middle of the sixth century the tripod had formed with rare exceptions 
the type of the coins of Croton, while the barley-ear had for the same 
long period appeared on the coins of Metapontum. This union of the 
recognized coin types, a sort of state arms, of those two cities on this 
one bar readily suggests the question as to whether the piece may not 
have been made to commemorate some event of common interest to those 
two cities. And obviously the question would be of an alliance between 
Croton and Metapontum. Now, a particular alliance between those two 
cities is not, I believe, recorded by ancient historians, nor is one with cer- 
tainty commemorated on their coins. But this lack of such records does 
not prove conclusively that no alliance was ever contracted between 
them. For not all the monetary unions and defensive leagues of those 
states left numismatic monuments, while some that did affect the coin- 
age are not mentioned by the writers. Was there, then, a critical period 
in the affairs of the Greek states on the southern coast of Italy when 
their ancient institution of the defensive league became necessary and 
would concern chiefly these two Achaean cities ? 

If there was a situation of that sort, it was most likelv toward the 
very end of the fourth century. For soon after the campaign of Alex- 
ander the Molossian, B. G. 330-328, the political situation in Magna 
Graecia became substantially as follows. The Greek cities of the west- 
ern coast and inland had been captured by the Lucanians and Bruttians, 
while the cities of the southern coast were being hard pressed by the 
same enemies. Locris had been detached from the rest of the Greek 
towns and was somewhat protected by its relations with Syracuse. The 
difficulties which Alexander had had with the jealous and suspicious 
Tarentines had induced him to lebuke that city in various ways; thus he 
had made a treaty of alliance with Metapontum — perhaps, too, with 
Croton at the same time ; he had removed the synod of the League from 
Tarentine control at Heraclea and had established it in Thurian terri- 
tory. One of the chief results of these measures was that from the in- 
tervention of Alexander the Molossian until the time of Pyrrhus, Tar- 
entum was not an active member of any union with the Achaean cities. 

The check which the Italian campaigns of Alexander had adminis- 
tered to the forward movement of the Lucanians and Bruttians was not 
of long duration, and what respite from aggression it did give the Greek 
cities was felt chiefly by Tarentum. The assaults, however, soon became 



Aes Signatum 29 

specially strong at two points — against Metapontum and against Croton. 
This was due directly to the geographical position of the former, in a 
rich territory on the gulf of Tarentum, and to the power and dominating 
position of the latter. F. Lenormant draws a similar picture of the po- 
sition of these two cities in respect to this danger: La Grande Grece, 
I, p. 130 — "La poussee des Lucaniens contre les villes grecques deve- 
nait chaque jour plus forte. Avec Thurioi, c'etait Metaponte a qui sa 
position geograpliique en faisait recevoir le premier choc/' and Vol. II, 
p. 128 — "Mais la principal objectif de leurs (les Bruttiens) attaques 
fat tou jours C rot one, comme Heraclee et Thurioi avaient etc des Lucan- 
iens. G y etait la grande ville dont la possession aurait double leur puis- 
sance et leur aurait permis de se creer une marine militaire." 

In 319 B. C. the position of the Crotons, who were besieged by the 
Bruttians, became so desperate that an appeal to Syracuse was made. It 
is in that period, sometime between 330 and 320, when the two chief 
Achaean cities fronted alone the attacks of the Lucanians and Bruttians, 
that the alliance to which the bar evidently alludes may have been made. 
Nor is this conjecture entirely unsupported by evidence. For on silver 
Staters issued at Croton in the period from 330 to 300 B. C. a barley-ear 
is found as a symbol on the reverse, which M. de Foville 1 interprets as 
probably an allusion to an alliance between Croton and Metapontum. 
And far more suggestive of an alliance between these cities, if not con- 
vincing proofs of one, are the types of certain coins struck by Meta- 
pontum in about the same period. One of these is a small silver 
piece 2 with reverse type consisting of a barley head and a tripod, the 
latter device being of the same size as the former and not a minor type or 
symbol in the field. Another is a small bronze coin with the barleyhead 
on the obverse and the tripod on the reverse 3 . This latter piece has in 
fact been explained by Minervini as the product of such an alliance as 
is here in question. 

However strong the objections may be to the view that these coin 
types contain allusions to an actual alliance between Croton and Meta- 
pontum, it will hardly be disputed that they are noteworthy evidence of 
close political relations between the two cities. 

And just such cordial relations established between Croton and 
Metapontum under stress of a common danger, and not necessarily a 

1 Revue JSFumis. 1908, p. 8 See, however, Numismatic Chronicle 1916, p, 214, where Mr. S. W. 
Gross gives his reasons for doubting that interpretation. 

2 Garrucci, Mom. d. Italia cm£.,*Tav. CIV, No. 21. 

3 Ibid., Tav. CV, No. 30. 



30 Aes Signattjm 

political alliance, would be an event of a sort and sufficient to explain the 
association of their respective arms, the tripod and barleyhead, on this 
bar. The absence of inscriptions of any sort is not a serious omission. 
On no other of these bars was an inscription less requisite to explain its 
origin and meaning than on this one; for the devices were well known 
in Southern Italy in relation to Croton and Metapontum, and equally 
well known was the significance of their appearance together on a coin 
or on such a piece as this bar. 

The question of the place where the bar may have had its origin, 
whether at Croton or Metapontum, can hardly be answered, nor is it of 
much importance; while the inevitable questions relating to its issue, 
whether by public authority or private enterprise, and also to its use, 
will be discussed below. 

HOG-ELEPHANT BAR. 

The Alliance Between the Italian States and Pyrrhus for the War with 

Rome. 

Plate III. 

It is very generally accepted that the types of this brick refer in 
some way to the war between the Romans and the Italian States aided 
by Pyrrhus. This conviction is due chiefly, it seems, to the representa- 
tion of an elephant on the piece; for the elephants brought to Italy by 
Pyrrhus were, so far as we know, the first with which the Romans had to 
deal in battle, and it is stated specifically that those captured at Bene- 
ventum and later brought to Rome were the first elephants ever seen by 
the Roman populace. Such capital events certainly justify the conclu- 
sion that somehow the elephant type alludes to the military force brought 
to Italy by the king of Epirus and possibly to some particular engage- 
ment with that force. But however obvious the general events to which 
the types of the brick may allude seem to be, yet the particular way in 
which the elephant and hog are to be interpreted as having reference to 
the war with Pyrrhus has not been shown to be so obvious. 

Without any objection, so far as I know, the types have been ex- 
plained as alluding to a catastrophe at the battle of Asculum. Accord- 
ing to a legend 1 the Romans took advantage of their thorough knowledge 
of certain idiosyncrasies of the elephant — an animal, as stated before, 
with which hitherto they had had nothing to do, at least in battle — and 
resorted to the strategem of introducing hogs into their battle-front and 

1 Aelian De Nat. Animal. I, 38 ; quoted by Garrucci. 



Abs Signatum 31 

the grunting of these hogs caused the elephants to stampede and tram- 
ple down their own lines. The result of this debacle was a brilliant vic- 
tory for the Romans : v vUr] avv roU P<w/Wot? Xa/jL-n-pm iyevero. Milani 1 accepts 
this interpretation, but with the interesting addition that the Romans 
meant to imply a hint to the Tarentines of the contempt in which they 
held the dangerous military elephant. 

Now, I do not understand that Garrucci, Haeberlin, nor anybody 
else who has accepted this explanation of the types necessarily regards 
the tradition of the elephant-stampede at Asculum as authentic. Mr. 
Hill in particular speaks guardedly of it, suggesting that the story may 
have been of later invention "inspired by the types of the 'brick' "; but 
Dr. Haeberlin is certainly less cautious, evidently believing that the tra- 
dition arose immediately after the battle and confidently states that the 
types allude to the stampede and that the brick was issued in 273 B. C, 
the date when the four elephants captured at Beneventum in 275 were 
led in triumph at Rome. 2 Accepting the existence of the story at so early 
a date as B. C. 273, or but seven years after the battle, does not, however, 
imply a belief that there was any basis in fact for the tale. Similarly 
there can be no question about a story of "The Angels of Mons" just 
after the battle at that place (1914), but there is likewise no question 
that the story was fictitious. More than one ancient coin-type represents 
an artistically wrought out but baseless legend ; such legends, however, 
generally belonged to the already remote and somewhat shadowy past 
of the issuing State and there was, at the time the coin-types were en- 
graved, an uncritical and quasi-religious faith in the stories. 

But the case in question is very different and one in which the facts 
back of the story cannot be neglected, particularly by those who main- 
tain that the bar was issued by the Roman government. For in that 
case it is implied that the piece was meant incidentally to commemorate 
an action that was immediately or eventually favorable to the Romans ; 
and several writers plainly hold that the bar was intended to celebrate 
the final triumph of the Romans over Pyrrhus. In that view the Roman 
government must be supposed to have claimed a victory in the battle of 
Asculum, or at least to have succeeded bv means of a clever stratagem 
in stampeding the elephants in the army of Pyrrhus, and the achievement 
was regarded as worthy not only of record but of symbolizing their com- 

1 Rivista Ital. 1891, p. 81 — . . . i Romani fecero intenclere sarcasticamente a chi non l'avreb- 
bero voluto sapere ai Tarentini che a cacciare lo spauracchio dei magni elefanti asiatici di Pirro, 
bastava il grugnito della leggendaria scrofa di Roma. 
2 Haeberlin, Systematik, p„ 54. 



32 Aes Signatum 

plete triumph over the powerful ally of the Italian confederation; for 
otherwise we must conclude that the Roman government sanctioned, for 
no discernible reason, an apocryphal story, and that, too, almost imme- 
diately following the supposed event. But the fact is that there is no 
trustworthy evidence either of a victory at Asculum or of a debacle in 
the lines of the allies. For from the dependable accounts of that battle, 
both ancient and modern, with special reference to Prof. Mommsen's 
among the latter, two or three facts stand out prominently. These are, 
that from the Roman point of view it was at best something less than a 
rout, at worst something more than a technical victory for Pyrrhus ; for 
the Romans fled from the field to their strongly fortified camp where they 
evidently expected and prepared for an attack, while Pyrrhus remained 
in full possession of the battle ground. And as to the story of the ele- 
plant-stampede, alleged to have been occasioned by a clever strategem, it 
is impossible to believe that, had it occurred or been mentioned by an 
early writer of any trustworthiness whatever, the later annalists and his- 
torians would have failed to make much of it. That thev do not seem to 
have done; and Professor Mommsen evidently found no ground for cred- 
iting the tale and does not mention it in his account of the battle. In 
fact he takes an altogether different view of the part performed by the 
elephants in that battle ; for he says : "It was not till the numerous escort 
of the elephants had, with arrows and stones hurled from slings, dis- 
lodged the combatants stationed in the Roman war-chariots and had 
cut the traces of the horses, and the elephants pressed upon the Roman 
line, that it began to waver. The giving wa}^ of the guard attached to 
the Roman chariots formed the signal for universal flight, which how- 
ever, did not involve the sacrifice of many lives, as the adjoining camp 
received the fugitives." 

On the other hand, assuming: that, although no such disaster took 
place within the lines of the coalition, yet a story that it did occur was 
spread about by the Romans, to conceal the facts of their defeat and that 
the story was credited, it is still impossible to believe that the Roman 
government would have made use of such an unauthentic tale for the 
subject of types of such a commemorative piece, especially at a time 
when the facts about the battle of Asculum were very fresh in the minds 
of all informed citizens. 1 For these reasons it is quite impossible to 
accept the usual interpretation of the types of this brick and retain 

1 It is not unlikely that the dramatic description of an elephant-stampede in battle was one of 
the stock themes of the schools; and Aelian employed the theme for practice in writing Greek. 



AES SlGNATUM 



33 



one's well-founded respect for the good taste and sane judgment of the 
Romans in the matters respecting a proper pride in their national 
history. 

The interpretation of the types which I venture to suggest, would, 
if found acceptable, remove the brick from any direct connection with 
Rome, and, of course, from all connection with the Roman or any other 
monetary system. Beginning with what I regard as properly the re- 
verse type of the brick, the accepted belief that the elephant alludes to 
the advent of the Epirote king and his army in Italy as an ally of the 
confederation of Italian States against Rome is so well grounded that 
probably none would dispute it. That momentous event was commemo- 
rated on at least three issues of Tarentine Staters by means of an ele- 
phant-symbol in the field, showing that the elephant was regarded as 
the proper symbol of the Epirote army. But it is the sow that furnishes 
the proof for connecting the types of this brick with the alliance between 
Pyrrhus and the Italian coalition. 




Fig. 1. 

A rational and dignified explanation of the hog- type is found in the 
old Italian ceremony of sacrificing a young sow when making a treaty 
of alliance (foedus). In the artistic representation of that ceremony 
on certain issues of coins, of which the denarii with the oath-scene issued 
during the Social War are specially instructive examples, a pig is held 
by a young man, while representatives of the high contracting parties 
stand with swords pointing toward the animal, probably meant to be rest- 
ing upon the head of the victim, and thus take the solemn oath. It is 
probably such a representation, very likely on a coin, that Cicero had 
in mind and perhaps before his eyes when he wrote the passage in De 
Inventione II, 91: In eo foedere quod factum est quondam cum Samni- 
Wbus, quidam adulescens nobilis porcum sustinuit iussu imperatoris ; 1 
f or the institution had apparently become obsolete after the complete 
conquest of the Italic states by Rome. (Fig. 1.) 

1 See also Livy I, 24 and Varro De B. B, TI, 4, 



34 Aes Signatum 

The pig which was sacrificed in the religious ceremony that was 
observed to make a foedus binding upon all parties was thus the central 
object of the final act with which the treaty of alliance was consummated 
and made effective. The appropriateness, therefore, of the pig as a 
symbol of the resulting alliance or of the allied powers is hardly open 
to dispute. 

When the coalition was formed for the great struggle with Rome 
the power of the Italic states predominated and so there is little room to 
doubt that when the treaty of alliance was made that treaty was solem- 
nized by the Italic and not by the Greek rite. The pig on this brick is, 
therefore, to be understood as a symbol of the alliance among the Italian 
states ; and in conjunction with the elephant for a reverse type the wider 
alliance between the coalition on the one hand and king Pyrrhus on the 
other is appropriately symbolized. 

An objection to this interpretation will perhaps be made on the 
ground that the animal represented on the bar is a sow, while nearly all 
writers employ the masculine form (porcus) of the word in discussing 
the old Italian ceremony of making treaties of alliance; and especially 
since Servius states definitely that Vergil had made a mistake in calling 
the pig employed as a victim for this ceremony a sow 1 — Comment., ad 
Aen. I. c, falso autem ait " porca" ; nam ad hoc genus sacrifidi porcus 
adhibatur. But Vergil's antiquarian knowledge is generally trust- 
worthy, and in this case he is corroborated by the representations on 
coins. For on the denarii struck by the confederates during the Social 
War where the sex of the pig is determinable it is found to be a sow ; 
and Garrucci so describes it: una porchetta, Mon. dell a Italia, p. 105, 
and Tav. XCI, 1-3. The masculine form porcus, on which alone Servius 
may have based his criticism, is of common gender, and so used for 
"■pig" without any notion of the sex. 2 Furthermore it was a young pig 
that was used for the ceremony as is certainly shown both from the 
representation on the Denarius and by Vergil's other allusion to the 
sacrifice in Aen. XII, 170: 

Sacerdos 
Saetefjerac foetum suis intonsamque bidentem 
Attulit. 

And it is a young sow that is represented on this bar, the proportions, 

1 Aen. VIII. 638, . . . et caesa iuw/ebantfoedera porca. 

2 Varro, de R. B. II, 4, 13, scrofa alat suos porcus, and in the singular with a qualifying word: 
Cic. de Leg. II, 22, 57 , porco femina piaculum. 



Aes Signatum 35 

however, suited to the artistic requirements of a figure that should fill 
the large field of the brick. 

If the above interpretation of the types of this brick be correct, 
then there can be little doubt that the piece had its origin in one of the 
Greek cities of southern Italv, in one of the members of the alliance 
during the war with Rome when Pyrrhus was their ally. It is impos- 
sible to state just where it originated, for a brick with such types might 
have appeared in any of the cities that participated in the treaty of con- 
federation for the prosecution of the war. But the most probable place 
of origin is Tarentum. Tarentum was the chief State of the Italian 
allies, it was the Tarentines that had taken the lead in securing the aid 
of Pyrrhus, and it was at that city that the king landed his army and 
established his headquarters. 

The reasons for commemorating the alliance between the Italian 
coalition and Pyrrhus are not so very far to seek. The motive is to be 
found in the great enthusiasm which the arrival of such a powerful army 
and resourceful general aroused throughout the countries that hoped at 
last to check the rising power of Rome and retain or recover their liber- 
ties. There was little doubt that the destruction of the Roman domina- 
tion in the conquered states of the South would speedily follow. In these 
circumstances it was natural that poet, painter, and sculptor should be 
aroused to celebrate in their respective ways this promising turn of 
affairs. And in this brick we have probably but one of many examples 
of commonplace objects which in one way or another reflected the en- 
thusiasm of the hour. 

THE EAGLE-PEGASUS BAR. 

Offensive and Defensive League Bettveen Rome and Carthage. 

Plate IV. 

The types of this brick have proved exceedingly difficult to explain ; 
and the problem they present has not been made easier, as might be 
expected, by the fact that the eagle and fulmen type was apparently a 
distinctive Roman emblem, as it certainly was in later times, and also 
by the presence of the legend ROMANOM which seemed to some writers 
to determine the origin of the piece very definitely and fix it beyond 
doubt as an issue of the Roman government. For the ground given by 
those plain indications at once became insecure when the investigator 
turned to the other side of the bar and attempted to explain the pegasus- 
type ; for the latter no rational explanation has yet been found, 



36 Aes Signatum 

Now the eagle and fubnen type does indeed seem to have reference 
to Roman sovereignty and so it has been generally accepted, though 
somewhat cautiously because, as Mr. Hill suggests/ that meaning may 
be of later origin. As to the pegasus-type, several theories have been 
advanced to explain it and justify its presence on a supposed Roman 
bar in conjunction with the eagle. Thus Professor Milani suggested that 
it was a sort of type parlant alluding to the invincible Roman cavalry : 
.... imagine parlante delta insuperabile rapidita e potenza delta cav- 
alleria romana, la quale Vha infatti adottato piu tardi per proprio ves- 
sillo. 2 Such a flight of fancy is certainly very interesting and worthy 
of the subject! Yet not much less fanciful is the view of Dr. Haeberlin 
that the pegasus is to be understood as the arms of Campania — "das 
Wappentier Cmnpaniens."* He offers no reasons for connecting pega- 
sus with Campania in such a manner ; whereas, if among the monuments 
of Campania one were to search for what might be considered to have 
been an armorial emblem of that country he would very likely decide 
upon the w T ell-known man-headed bull which occurs so often on coins 
of Campanian cities ; and he certainly would be cautious about pronounc- 
ing in favor of such an object as pegasus, the myth of which was so very 
widely spread and which appears upon the coins and other monuments 
of so many Greek settlements. It is, indeed, difficult to find any evidence 
that might warrant Dr. Haeberlin 's interpretation of this interesting 
type. 

With that view, however, of the pegasus-type on this bar Dr. Hae- 
berlin proceeds to a most ingenious explanation of the bar as a whole. 
The types of the piece, he holds, allude to the final conquest of Campania 
by Rome, an event definitely consummated and best marked by the com- 
pletion of the military Via Appia in B. C. 312. Commemorative of the 
completion of that highway the Wheel-series of heavy bronze coins was 
issued by Rome from the Capuan mint and in connection therewith this 
bar with the eagle-pegasus types. This bar is, therefore, the first of the 
nine forming his " Romano-Campanian ' ' group. Since this interpreta- 
tion of the bar depends wholly upon the unproved assumption that pe- 
gasus was the Wappentier of Campania one could not feel very secure 
about its correctness ; and since there is good reason to believe that the 
assumption is utterly wrong, for that reason, if for no others, the Hae- 
berlin explanation would have to be rejected. 

1 Hill, Gr. F., Hist. Roman Coins, p. 14, ftn. 1. 

2 Bimsta Ttal, 1891, p. 70. 3 Systematic p. 32. 



Aes Signatum 37 

As to the inscription ROMANOM Dr. Haeberlin accepts, and his 
general theory of the bars naturally reinforces, the view that it is the 
official ethnic name ; and he explains the presence of the inscription on 
the side that bears the alleged arms of Campania by saying that thus it 
was meant to express graphically that Campania had become entirely 
Roman territory. 

The significance and great importance that have generally been 
attached to this inscription have been discussed above and certain objec- 
tions to the theory stated. A reason for its occurrence on the reverse of 
the bar will be suggested below. 

The explanation of the types of this brick about to be suggested is 
so utterly at variance with the views of the many able writers who have 
discussed it, writers whose great learning and acumen will always be 
entitled to the highest esteem, that I hesitate to advance it, and I should 
feel even greater diffidence were it not that the views which have been 
given are not supported by substantial proofs and also that other schol- 
ars of equal authority have been unable to accept them. For the expla- 
nation here proposed does not find the meaning of the types in the con- 
quest of Campania nor in any other Roman conquest, nor in the Roman 
government the authority that issued the bar. 

The eagle-and-fulmen type of the obverse of this bar with much 
probability refers to Rome in some way ; and apparently it is an emblem 
of Roman power and sovereignty, a sovereignty that had been extended 
and was, at the time this bar was made, upheld wholly by the Romato 
armies. It cannot, perhaps, be definitely proved that this was a recog- 
nized symbol of Roman power in the early part of the third century 
B. C, the period in which I propose to date the bar, but the eagle-and- 
fulmen occurs as a coin-type on bronze coins issued by certain Italian 
cities under Roman domination before the end of the third centurv, so 
that it seems very probable, indeed, that it had become established as a 
symbol of Rome at a much earlier date, and very likely as early as the 
beginning of that century, perhaps earlier. 

In the article on Pegasus in Roscher's Lexicon, p. 1743, occurs the 
very important statement that a horse, either with or without wings, 
was an emblem on Punic ships ; ein einf aches oder geflilgeltes Ross ist ja 
das Zeichen panischer Scliiffe, dock geliort es als solches tvaJirscheinlich 
unter den symbolisclien Figuren der Plioniher. The horse emblem in 
some form — hippocamp, wingless horse or pegasus — on Phoenician and 
Punic ships must have been familiar to seafaring peoples throughout the 



38 Aes Signatum 

Mediterranean. Strabo states, for instance, that small trading ships 
from the Phoenician city of Gadira were called horses (SWot) because 

they bore effigies of horses on their prows. 1 

The pegasus-type was placed on the reverse of the brick by an Ital- 
ian Greek as an emblem of the Carthaginian sea power. The horse on 
Punic ships and on the ships of other Phoenician colonies may not have 
been a winged pegasus, but a Greek was quite certain to recognize in 
even the well-known wingless horse of Carthage the same mythical ani- 
mal, the offspring of Poseidon, that he knew as the winged pegasus; 
and they may have been the same, for originally the Greek pegasus was 
a wingless creature. And in the course of the third century, probably, 
however, as Mr. Head states, in the period between the First and Second 
Punic Wars, a winged horse (pegasus?) was employed by the Cartha- 
ginians for the type of a large silver Duodekadrachm, while in the same 
period a Dekadrachm was struck with the type of the wingless horse. 
Evidently, therefore, the myth of a winged pegasus was being gradually 
localized at Carthage in the third century. 

This evidence is of unmistakable importance in connection with the 
types of this brick. For if an historical reason can be found for uniting 
on such a thing as a coin or a bar like the one under consideration such 
devices as the eagle and fulmen, symbolical of Roman power, which was 
mainly a military power, and the pegasus, symbolical of the Carthagin- 
ian sea-power, a rational and perhaps a correct explanation of the types 
will have been gained. And such a reason clearly exists. For Livy 
states that in B. C. 279 Rome for the fourth time renewed a treaty of 
alliance with the Carthaginians. 2 The texts of these four treaties are 
given by Polybius, the fourth 1 of which has special reference to the 
struggle with a number of Italic nations and western Greeks, then led 
by Pyrrhus, in which Rome and Carthage had a common interest, and 
felt the menace of a common danger should Pyrrhus succeed in building 
up a powerful Greek empire in the West. Mommsen in his History of 
Rome (Vol. II, page 28) discusses this treaty in extenso: 

' i The immediate effect, indeed, of this union of the Italian 
and Sicilian Greeks under one control was a closer concert also 

1 Strabo, II, 3, 4: — To6twv (TaSeipiTuv) yap tovs fxkv ip-iropovs p.eyd\a artWeiv TrXoia, tovs Si iriv-qras fiiKpa, 
a KoKeiv ittttovs euro rdv iv Tats irpujpais iirio"r)/J.u}v. 

2 Livy, Epit. Lib. XIII. Cum Carthagiuiensibus quarto foedus renovatum est. 

3 Polybius, III, 25: — idv o~vp.p.axlav TTOLUvrai irpbs Hvppov, £77 pairrov iroieiaQwaav dfupbrepoi, Xva itjrj (Borjdetv 
d\\r)\ois iv tti tCjv iro\ep\ovp,ivo)v x^P a ' otrbrepoL 5' av xpdav *x w<TL T V* ftorjddas, ra Tr\o?a wapexir ojaav Kapxv^ovoi Kal 
els r^y b8bv Kal els ttjv e<po8ov, to. 8i oxj/ibvia toTs avrwv CKaTepoi. Kapxy86voi 8i Kal Kara OdXarrav Ycjp.alois (3or)dd- 
Tiaaav, &v XP € ^ a ??« T °- °^ T\r)pwp.aTa p.r)Sels dvayKa^iru iKfialveiv dKovalios. 



Aes Stgnatum 39 

on the part of their antagonists. Carthage and Rome now con- 
verted their old commercial treaties into an offensive and defen- 
sive league against Pyrrhus, the tenor of which was that, if 
Pyrrhus invaded Roman or Carthaginian territory, the party 
which was not attacked should furnish that which was assailed 
with a contingent on its own territory and should defray the ex- 
pense of the auxiliary troops; that in such event Carthage 
should be bound to furnish transports and to assist the Romans 
also with a war fleet, but the crews of that fleet should not be 
obliged to fight for the Romans by land; that lastly, both states 
should pledge themselves not to conclude a separate peace with 
Pyrrhus. The object of the Romans in entering into the treaty 
was to render possible an attack on Tarentum and to cut off 
Pyrrhus from his own country, neither of which ends could be 
attained without the cooperation of the Punic fleet; the* object 
of the Carthaginians was to detain the king in Italy, so that they 
might be able without molestation to carry into effect their de- 
signs on Syracuse." (The Italics are mine.) 

This treaty went into effect immediately after it was concluded, 
and concerted action between the Carthaginian fleet and the Romans 
proceeded at once: for Prof. Mommsen adds: "A powerful Carthagin- 
ian fleet of 120 sail under the admiral Mago proceeded from Ostia, 
whither Mago seems to have gone to conclude the treaty, to the Sicilian 
Straits. " 

Here, then, is an event of capital importance involving Rome and 
Carthage, and involving them in such a manner that it might be very 
appropriately commemorated by means of just such a monument as this 
bar with a Roman eagle on one side and the Carthaginian horse or pega- 
sus on the other. The suitability of the types to the event is quite beyond 
question, a fact however that does not definitely settle the question of 
the explanation of the bar ; it does justify the suggestion that such might 
be the correct exj3lanation and also the hope that further investigation 
may produce better evidence that the types of the bar do allude to that 
treaty. This suggestion is further supported by the inscription on the 
brick ! 

For if the meaning that has been suggested for the types should 
prove correct, the interpretation of the inscription ROMANOM on the 
reverse is not far to seek. If a hint of how it should be read were nec- 
essary, that hint would be given by the inscription on a Roman Aureus 



40 Aes Signatum 

struck by the monneyer C. Antestius Reginus in B. C. 18, (Bab. An- 
testia, No. 17). The reverse type of that Aureus alludes to the treaty 
with the Gabini and the inscription reads, 

FOEDVS P (opuli). U(omani) QVM GABINIS 

and if the inscription on the bar be expanded, with the help of the mean- 
ing expressed by the types, according to the form given on the later coin, 
it would read, 

foedvs EOMANOM cvm carthaginiensibvs. 

It is doubtless unnecessary to repeat that the word ROMANOM is 
a genitive plural form. Whether it is an alternate form of ROMANO 
found on certain silver coins, that is, whether the two forms were in use 
in the same place and at the same time, is open to question. 

Assuming that the above explanation of the bar is correct the ques- 
tion naturally arises as to the time and place of its origin. Of course 
the Haeberlin theory that it was made in B. C. 312, or very soon there- 
after, would be proved erroneous — in fact the whole ingenious System- 
atik collapses if one or two of those bricks should be torn from the struc- 
ture. The bar was probably made very soon after the political events of 
B. C. 279, which inspired' the choice of the types, and very likely, though 
not necessarily, before the relations between the Romans and Carthagin- 
ians became strained, preceding the outbreak of The First Punic War. 
This terminus ante quern might be considered settled if the brick had 
been issued by the State ; but it is not so certain, though probable, if the 
piece was of private origin. 

And certainly the question whether the bar was, as Haeberlin holds, 
after all issued by the Roman government as a sort of commemorative 
piece must be answered in the negative. For although there is much 
evidence that the practice of commemorating events of public and pri- 
vate importance had become established among the Romans long before 
the date suggested for this brick, yet it is improbable that the Romans 
would thus honor an alliance that was dictated by necessity with a nation 
that was even then an object of their contemptuous hatred. For this 
reason and other considerations which I shall state further on it seems 
probable that the piece was the product of private enterprise. 

The place of production cannot be determined with any greater 
degree of certainty than the character of the authority that was respon- 
sible for the piece, but I venture to suggest that it was at Venusia where 
a large Roman colony had been established (B. C. 292) and which was 



Aes Signatum 41 

within the immediate vicinity of the stirring events of the war with 
Pyrrhus and the coalition. The Roman colonists and Greek exiles at 
Venusia were in a position to be acquainted with the drift of affairs at 
Tarentum, especially to know of the great hopes of victory the coming 
of the Epirote had inspired. It is also by no means impossible that the 
hog-and-elephant bar, which the consummation of the alliance and the 
arrival of Pyrrhus had brought forth, had become known at Venusia 
and in response to the boast thus implied this bar was produced alluding 
to the more than counterbalancing alliance between Rome and Carthage. 

THE TRIPOD AND ANCHOR BAR. 

Croton's Participation in the First Punic War. 

Plate V. 

This bar is discussed to considerable length by Milani in his paper 
on the aes rude and aes signatum of the important find at Bruna. He 
endeavored to show that the various specimens of this type were pro- 
duced at different periods, basing his argument upon differences of 
weight and a variation of artistic treatment, which he regarded as mark- 
ing successive degrees of development from an archaic style. In the 
anchor he finds allusions to sea voyages, whose destinations, as indicated 
by the tripod of Apollo, were shrines of that god. He then connects the 
different specimens of the bar, or rather coins according to Prof. 
Milani 's view, with various official embassies to Delphi on occasions of 
pestilence at Rome in B. C. 453, 429, and 399. 

There are a good many obstacles to one's taking this explanation very 
seriously, let alone accepting it. Chief among them is the impossibility 
of accepting the view that the artistic treatment of the types, especially 
of the tripod, on which Milani lays most stress, reveals traces of archaism 
in any of the specimens or any diversity of treatment that can be ascribed 
to different stages of artistic development. Not all of the specimens 
are from the same moulds, some of them are evidently better done than 
others, but the differences are those of careful and careless workman- 
ship. The several pieces are certainly contemporaneous. As to the ex- 
planation of the anchor-type, Dr. Haeberlin has pointed out that it was 
too widely employed, by inland as well as by maritime states, to admit 
of the specific interpretation Prof. Milani offers. 

The tripod of this bar again recalls the well-known coin-type or 
arms of Croton, and since no satisfactory explanation has yet been given 



42 Aes Signatum 

of the types from a Roman point of view the effort to find an explanation 
of them in the history of Croton is specially justified. And in the part 
which Croton almost certainly played in connection with the First Punic 
War I believe there can be found a rational explanation of the tripod 
in connection with the anchor on this bar. To make clear the motive that 
inspired the employment of such types as well as the event it seems to 
commemorate it is necessary to recall briefly certain facts about the ex- 
tension of Roman sovereignty over the Greek cities of Italy and the man- 
ner in which that authority was accepted by the Greeks. 

Rome's conquest of the South Italian states, made complete by the 
fall of Tarentum and of Cosentia, capital of the Bruttii, in the same year 
of B. C. 272, was followed by the exercise of those mild measures Rome 
had before employed in dealing with peoples rightfully proud of a rather 
long and glorious past. For following a policy which had also served 
so well her own interests, the Greek cities were annexed with the peculiar 
relationship of confederated or allied states (civitates foederatae), a 
form of incorporation that left in their own hands the administration 
of their local affairs. In return for this favorable status there was re- 
quired of them military aid when needed — of the inland cities, troops and 
military supplies; of the maritime states, contingents of warships for 
the Roman fleet. 

Now there can be no doubt that the real benefits which accrued to 
the conquered Greek cities were fully as great as the advantages gained 
by the conqueror, important though the latter were. For the advent of 
Roman power checked at once the recurrent bitter wars among the Greek 
communities themselves, it freed them, also, from the centuries-old 
menace of their rude war-like neighbors, and finally it delivered them 
from the increasing peril of being subjugated by a foreign power, a 
danger to which their later policy of appealing to foreign princes for 
help and protection had exposed them. On the other hand, the terms of 
submission granted by Rome were so respectful of the political feelings 
of the Greek communities that they not only became reasonably con- 
tented, but were apparently inspired with considerable enthusiasm for 
their new suzerain. 

Our information in regard to the real sentiment of the Greek popu- 
lation in Italy toward Rome is not extensive, but the little we have indi- 
cates that with the realization that they had been saved from a worse 
fate than the loss of independence there arose among them a genuine 



Aes Signatum 43 

loyalty to the new relationship. The most substantial proof of this feel- 
ing is the response the various maritime cities made to Rome's require- 
ments of warships for the prosecution of the First Punic War, for that 
was prompt and seemingly enthusiastic, while the heavy burdens laid 
upon them during that long struggle were evidently borne without undue 
complaint. Had they desired to be rid of Roman domination, the war 
offered them the opportunity of achieving that end. For had the Greek 
cities revolted or even been lax in the naval service, which must have 
fallen largely to their lot, the Romans would have been paralyzed in not 
only their naval but also their military operations, so dependent were 
they upon the ships furnished by the Greek cities for transports as well 
as ships of the line, particularly in the earliest part of the struggle. 

But in no way is the spontaneous loyalty of the Greek cities toward 
Rome better attested than by the Didrachm which Locris struck soon 
after Roman domination had been securely established in that city, a 
form of proof that is particularly interesting in view of the suggestion 
presently to be made in connection with the bar in question. I mean that 
well-known silver Didrachm 1 with the reverse type showing Fides stand- 
ing and in the act of placing a crown upon the head of Roma who is 
seated. To leave no doubt about the identity of the two figures and the 
significance of the type the engraver added the names PUMA and 
TII2TIS. In this remarkable way Locris gave expression to her loyal 
acceptance of Roman domination. But not less important than the testi- 
mony of this interesting monument to their political sentiments was the 
resort to the traditional method of expressing them by means of a coin 
type; for it is a strong proof that this means of commemorating politi- 
cal events, especially those of an international or quasi-international 
character, had become thoroughly established in the course of the long 
practice that has been mentioned above. It will, therefore, hardly ap- 
pear a far-fetched suggestion that in some of the other Greek cities a 
similar means was employed to give expression to a similar sentiment 
though perhaps by individuals after the right to strike coins had been 
lost or at least limited by law or necessity. 

What part, now, did Croton probably take in the First Punic War 
that could justify the theory that this brick has reference thereto ? An- 
cient historians tell us comparatively little of the extent of the services 
Rome had from her recently conquered Greek cities in that war, though 
sporadic notices prove that they were considerable. Especially can there 

1 Head, Historia Nymorum, p. 88, fig. 59. 



44 Aes Signatum 

be little doubt that both Mommsen 1 and Pais 2 are correct in assigning 
to them a very important role in all the naval preparations and opera- 
tions. Suddenly brought face to face with the greatest sea-power of the 
time Rome found herself unequipped to meet such an antagonist ; there- 
fore she had to depend upon the contingents of warships required of the 
maritime cities for whatever effective naval force she succeeded in mus- 
tering at the beginning of the war. But, more important still, these 
cities furnished men trained to the sea, also men skilled in the construc- 
tion of ships, and finally, what was of chief value, in the great forests 
which Rome had exacted from the Bruttii as a condition of peace in 
B. C. 272 there was near these Greek cities a convenient supply of excel- 
lent timber. This forest, known as the Sila, stretched through what had 
once been the territory of Croton and other cities, but had been taken 
from them by the Bruttii. The Sila was famous in antiquity for the 
abundance of its timbers which were suitable for every kind of construe- 
tion including shipbuilding. 3 From it were built the considerable fleets 
which the coast cities had from time to time for the past two centuries 
sent to sea; and when the Elder Dionysius sent a force of men to Italy to 
cut ship-timber it was undoubtedly from the Sila the timber was pro- 
cured (Diodorus Sic. XIV, 7). 

Now, when the Romans took possession of half of that splendid 
forest it became a public property and was exploited by the State 
through commissioners who leased the rights to use the grazing lands, 
to produce pitch, and cut timber. This was probably the abundant source 
of timber the Romans had when in the first conflict with Carthage they 
were compelled to make the greatest exertions to create and afterwards 
to maintain a fleet. For if we accept the statements of the careful Poly- 
bius the Roman fleet of triremes, composed mainly of the contingents 
levied upon the Greek maritime cities, was soon found to be no match 
for the heavy Carthaginian battleships, so that heavier vessels, on the 
model of a captured quinquereme according to Polybius, 4 had to be built 
at once after the breaking out of hostilities, while successive disastrous 
naval engagements made it necessary to build several large fleets in the 

1 Mommsen, Staatsi-echt, III, p. 677: — Die Italiken, so weit sie Griechen sind, bilrten den Kern 
der romischen Flotten. 

2 Pais, Storia di R, I, 2, p. 645: — Quelli che posero fine alia supremazia punica, piu che ai duci 
romani sono dovuti al genio degli Italici e dei federati delle altre regioni maritime della penisola. 

3 Dion., Halic XX, FriUJ. V: — oi Pptrrioi, €k6vt€s viroTaytvTes Pw,ucu'ois, tt)v T)/j.L(reiai> ttjs dpeivijs irape- 
8<j)Kav avToh, rj KaXeirai p.tv 2i\a, pearr} S iarlv vXrjs els oUodopas re kcli vavTryyias kcli iracrav &\\r)i> KaraaKevrjp 
fvdirov. 

4 Polybius, I, 20. 



Aes Signatum 45 

course of the long war. These ships were probably built in several 
places, and very likely some of them in the navalia at Rome, but it is 
most probable that the majority of them were constructed on the south- 
ern coast where excellent timber was at hand in abundance and skilled 
shipwrights could be secured. 

While direct evidence for such a conclusion is not given by the 
ancient writers, yet circumstantial evidence, if evidence be needed, is to 
be found in the movements of the Roman fleet as recorded by the histo- 
rians. For example, in speaking of the new fleet of 220 sail which the 
Romans built in B. C. 254, following the disaster off Camarina, Polybius 
(I, 38) says: "As they passed through the straits they took up from 
Messana those of the vessels which had been saved from the wreck ; and 
having thus arrived with three hundred ships off Panormus . . . they 
began to besiege it. ' This fleet, then, came from the south, or at least a 
portion of it apparently did, passed through the straits on its way to the 
north coast of Sicily and on to Panormus. Certainly that must be the 
meaning of the language of Polybius. For had the fleet been built at 
Rome, for instance, and sailed down to Sicily it is improbable that such 
a careful historian and so clear in stating facts, would have mentioned 
a single passage through the straits as an incident of the voyage to Pan- 
ormus ; for a fleet coming down from Rome would have passed through 
the straits twice (at least through the greater and more dangerous por- 
tion of them) in reaching Messana and then proceeding to Panormus. 
But it is probably a safe assumption and hardly requiring proof that 
when all the resources of the republic were laid under contribution to 
meet the greatest sea-pow T er of the time on something like equal terms 
the Romans made the fullest possible use of the vast shipbuilding facili- 
ties available on the southern coast. 

When the exploitation of the State's portion of the Sila was put in 
charge of a commission, the commissioners were stationed at Croton, a 
fact that would lead one to suppose that the portion belonging to Rome 
stood convenient to that city. And, indeed, the best part of the Sila ap- 
parently was just back of Croton, where it had long afforded protection 
as well as material advantages to the enemies of the city during the pro- 
tracted period of border warfare. So when in the First Punic War the 
Romans proceeded to utilize that forest for the construction of warships 
it was almost certainly at Croton that the extensive yards were built. 
This inference rests not alone upon the fact of Croton 's proximity to the 
Sila but upon the equally important consideration that its harbor was 



46 Aes Sigxatum 

one of the best on that coast between Messana and Tarentum. 1 It was not 
a land-locked harbor, only a roadstead suitable for use in the summer, 
but evidently a better anchorage than Polybius seems to describe if, as 
he further states, the great wealth of Croton was largely due to the su- 
perior advantages shipping had there over any afforded by the other 
cities of that coast. Furthermore, Croton had the most easily defended 
citadel 2 on the entire south Italian coast. Croton was, then, at once the 
most convenient and the most secure place along that coast for the utili- 
zation of the public forests for shipbuilding ; and there is probably very 
little if any ground to doubt that the principal shipyards were at that 
time located at that place. 

It is to that event, the particular part which Croton played in the 
prosecution of the First Punic War, that the types of the brick have 
reference. The presence of the tripod as the obverse type furnishes of 
course the principal clew to this attribution, but the lead thus given has 
brought us to an event that also gives a reasonable ground for associat- 
ing the anchor with the Croton tripod. 

It is not claimed of course that the anchor had in antiquity the 
specific symbolic meaning that is apparently here attached to it. In 
fact it is difficult to determine the symbolic meaning of the anchor found 
on Greek and Roman coins ; its significance seemingly varies and is ap- 
plied in several ways to shipping and harbors, but hardly to voyages, 
which the Disocuri were supposed to safeguard. On this brick the 
anchor is employed to indicate in a general way the sort of service, that 
is, to the fleet, which Croton rendered to the Romans during the war. 

If much be still desired to place the attribution of this bar beyond 
dispute, yet I believe that some solid ground has been reached as a basis 
of future investigations. The tripod had for centuries been the prin- 
cipal coin-type of Croton; few Greek cities had more consistently ad- 
hered to a particular device than it had to that emblem, so that in Italy 
and likely much more widely, the tripod-device must have become so 
well associated with that city as to acquire as much the position of a 
city -arms of Croton as the owl was of Athens, Arethusa and the dolphins 
were of Syracuse, or Pegasus of Corinth. And it is because of this 
historical association of the tripod with Croton, coupled with the fact 
that there was an important event in the historv of the citv to which the 

1 Polybius, X, 1, 6." exeivoi yap dept.vovs ex 0VT€S opp.ovs k<xi fipaxeidv tlvol TravreX&s irpoaaywyrjp, /xeydXrji' 
evbaifiouiav Sokovcti TrepLTroirjaaadai 5i' ovStv erepov rj 8ia ttjv tGsv rbiriov ev(pviai>, r/v ovde cvyKplveiv d£i6v eari tois 
Tapavrivtov XipL^ai /ecu t6ttols. 

2 Lenormant, La Grande Grece, II, p. 14. 



Aes Signatum 47 

anchor type might properly allude, that the explanation here given seems 
justified. 

THE COCKS AND ROSTRA BAR. 
The Guard at the Straits Daring the First Picnic War. 

Plate VI. 

There have been several interpretations of the types of this brick, 
but none of them is free from serious objections. The earlier theory 
was that the types had reference to some battle at sea, that being appar- 
ently the significance of the " tridents" and of the "fighting cocks," but 
that idea had to be abandoned, chiefly for want of a naval engagement to 
justify it. Then Carrucci showed that the supposed "tridents' were 
in reality the rostra of battleships, a suggestion more fully confirmed 
by Prof. Milani, a fact that should have aided the older explanation. In 
the two cocks Grarrucci saw a representation of the augural ceremony 
of the tripudhim solistimum, whereby the military or naval commander 
was warned of the fated issue of an impending engagement by the be- 
havior of the sacred chickens : favorable if they should eat greedily, un- 
favorable should they refuse to eat ; while the two stars referred to the 
Dioscuri, guardians of the sea-voyage, thus connecting the type with the 
action of a naval commander. One of the serviceable features of this 
explanation is that its generality permits the widest application of its 
meaning. Thus Prof. Milani suggested that the types alluded to the 
naval victory won by Duilius off Mylae in B. C. 260. Dr. Haeberlin 
objects to this purely on the ground of his own theory that no bars were 
issued after the institution of the denarius coinage in B. C. 268, an ob- 
jection that begs one of the vital questions in his theory. A more serious 
objection, it seems to me, is the fact that the notion of a victory is not 
indicated by either of the types on the bar. And so enthusiastic were 
the Romans over the victory of Duilius that it is inconceivable that the 
State would issue this bar with types intended to commemorate that 
victory and yet fail utterly to give a plain and intelligible expression to 
the main idea. 

Dr. Haeberlin in turn develops his own interesting views of this bar 
with much fullness. He connects it with the prow-series of bronze coins, 
of reduced standard, issued at Rome; the bar, however, for reasons of 
style, he holds, was issued, like the earlier examples, from the mint at 
Capua. At the head of this series of coins are a Dectissis and a Tressis 



48 Aes Signatum 

whose types are head of Roma and the well-known prow, the Roma-head 
alluding to the sovereignty of Rome. Now the same general idea had to 
be expressed by the types of the bar issued in connection with that series. 
And that requirement is met by this bar, more or less obviously by the 
rostra, though one would naturally expect the prow here the same as 
on the coins. Accepting Garrucci's view that in the cocks we have a 
representation of the tripudium solistimum which the rostra and dol- 
phins show was meant to have reference to the sea, Dr. Haeberlin con- 
cludes that the general significance of the types is Rome's claim of lord- 
ship on the sea — "Herrschaft . . . zur See." 

Against this very ingenious interpretation it can be properly urged 
that sea-power is only won by victories on the sea, and, as we shall see 
below, Rome did not become a sea-power at all until after the First 
Punic War, nor had the Romans before that war built a navy of any 
considerable power, nor a merchant fleet; on the other hand, neither a 
victory nor sea-power can be appropriately commemorated by the rep- 
resentation of a ceremony that was customarily employed to ascertain 
in advance the fated issue of a particular engagement. The ancients had 
several ways of commemorating a victory and also the definite results 
of a successful war, but none of them was quite so far-fetched as would 
be the portrayal of a favorable issue of an engagement by the represen- 
tation of a mode of prediction employed before the beginning of the 
action. 

But the chief objection is found in the fact that at the time to which 
Dr. Haeberlin would assign this bar — that is, several years before B. C. 
268 — Rome was not a sea-power. Nothing could be more evident from 
the very terms of the treaty of alliance with Carthage made in B. C. 279, 
and quoted above. An offensive league with Carthage would have been 
the last measure Rome would have considered had she possessed a fleet 
able to cope with the limited naval resources of Pyrrhus or the expe- 
rienced men and material to build one. And if we refer back to the com- 
mercial treaty 1 made with Carthage in B. C. 348 we find the facts to be 
even worse respecting Rome's power on the sea. "In that treaty," as set 
forth by Mommsen, 2 "the Romans had to come under the obligation not 
to navigate the Libyan coast to the west of the Fair Promontory (Cape 
Bon) excepting in cases of necessity. On the other hand, they obtained 
the privilege of freely trading, like the natives in Sicily, so far as it was 
Carthaginian; and in Africa and Sardinia they obtained at least the 

1 Polybius, III, 21. 2 Mommsen, History of Borne ,*Vol. II, p. 41 f. 



Aes Signatum 49 

right to dispose of their merchandise at a price fixed with the concur- 
rence of the Carthaginian officials and guaranteed by the Carthaginian 
community. The privilege of free trading seems to have been granted 
to the Carthaginians at least in Rome, perhaps in all Latium ; only they 
bound themselves neither to do violence to the subject Latin communi- 
ties nor, if they should set foot as enemies on Latin soil, to take up their 
quarters for a night on shore — in other words, not to extend their pirati- 
cal inroads into the interior — nor to construct any fortresses in the 
Latin land." And in the very next paragraph Mommsen mentions a 
treaty which Rome entered into with Tarentum and probably at the 
same period, by which "The Romans bound themselves — for what con- 
cessions on the part of Tarentum is not stated — not to navigate the waters 
to the east of the Lacinian promontory ; a stipulation by which they were 
thus wholly excluded from the eastern basin of the Mediterranean." 
There is not the least evidence that any of the terms of these treaties had 
been changed in the interval up to the end of the war with Pyrrhus ; and 
since the treaty of alliance with Carthage in B. C. 279 was made under 
stress of circumstances, it is not improbable that that power even more 
severely enforced the agreements with her possible rival. 

Never did a free country subscribe to more humiliating conditions 
than did Rome in those two treaties. So far as she was concerned the 
western Mediterranean became virtually a Carthaginian lake which 
Romans might navigate only on sufferance of the African naval power or, 
as the Carthaginian ambassadors bluntly put it, "Against our will you 
(Romans) cannot even wash your hands in the sea," while they dared not 
dip an oar in the eastern waters. The only discernible compensation for 
such renunciation of her natural rights was the promise, of Carthage at 
least, to impose some restraint upon the activities of pirates who sailed 
from her harbors and especially of those who made it a business to plun- 
der the Italian coast. 

It is probable that in B. C. 348, and for long afterward, Roman state 
policy did not contemplate any oversea conquests, but was limited to the 
subjugation of neighboring nations in Italy, in order to secure them- 
selves against future aggressions, and probably with a view of ulti- 
mately securing the sovereignty of the entire peninsula. If Rome had a 
fleet of warships before the end of the fourth centuiy Roman historians 
seem never to have discovered trace of it. The Board of Fleet-masters 
(duoviri navales) created in B. C. 311 was more likely charged with the 
task of building and organizing a fleet than of taking over the admini^- 



50 Aes Signatum 

tration of one already in existence ; for the fleet mentioned by Livy 1 is 
the first Roman fleet of which there is any record (cf Ihne, Hist, of 
Rome, p. 421), and that was in the year 310. When the First Punic- 
War began the Roman naval power was still negligible. 

Any theory, therefore, that this bar may have had reference to 
Rome's sovereignty on the sea is hardly tenable; and likewise is it im- 
possible to associate the bar with a naval victory, because Rome had no 
naval victories to commemorate till late in the First Punic War, and 
probably no naval battles. For there are very good reasons to believe 
that Antium was taken by a land operation and the few (only six) pirate 
ships which harbored there were surrendered in accordance with the 
terms of the treaty of peace ; and thus there was no naval victory over 
the Antiate fleet, which the rostra on the tribunal in the forum and on 
the bronze coins are supposed to commemorate. 

The real significance of the types of this brick will probably be 
found, if ever, in a definite fact or event and not in any general idea. 
And there is such a definite event in the First Punic War to which these 
types might fitly allude. 

In that war the control of Messana and Rhegium together with the 
intervening Straits was of the utmost strategic importance to the 
Romans. In fact the immediate cause of the first conflict between Rome 
and Carthage may have been rather the danger Rome saw was immi- 
nent if the Carthaginians in alliance with Hiero of Syracuse should 
succeed in capturing Messana than the other political and commercial 
considerations usually given. For the Romans realized that the posses- 
sion of Messana by the Carthaginians was a javelin aimed at the vitals 
of the republic. The city's great harbor could accommodate six hundred 
warships 2 and would have afforded an excellent base for a great sea- 
power like Carthage, not only for military operations against Rome's 
newly conquered and yet insecurely held southern provinces, but also 
for plundering the coast towns. Of all these dangerous possibilities, 
Polybius says, the Romans were fully aware — that Messana to the Catha- 
ginians "would be like a bridge to enable them to cross over into Italy." 3 

But it was after the struggle of the First Punic War had begun that 
the Straits and Messana assumed the greatest strategic importance to 
the Romans. Realizing the value of the city's fine harbor and dominant 
position, its sudden capture had been their first move in the war; there 

1 Livy, IX, 38. 2 Diod. Sic, XIV, 50. 

3 See also ZonaraS. VIII, 8: — Kal ts ttjv IraXiav <?£ avr-qs (Messana) 8ia(3ri<roi>Tai. 



Aes Signatum 51 

they had established a naval arsenal, equipped for repairing warships 
and furnished with large quantities of material for supplying the fleet. 
The protection of that arsenal, while important, was, however, only an 
incident in the more vital policy they had to pursue of restricting the 
operations of the Carthaginian fleet and preventing the interruption of 
their chief line of communications with Sicily. Both of these objects 
could be attained by a secure hold on Messana and Rhegium ; for it was 
the judgment of ancient as it is also of modern writers 1 that the posses- 
sion of these two cities carried with it the control of the intervening 
Straits. 

It requires no extended portrayal of the situation to understand 
how it came about that the state of affairs at the Straits was throughout 
the war of the greatest concern. For effective control there meant clos- 
ing of that narrow channel to navigation and thereby greatly hamper- 
ing if not paralyzing the offensive operations of the Punic fleet, so dis- 
tant for warships of that period were its bases, at the western end of 
the island, from the Italian coast and the chief field of activity ; while 
merchantmen creeping along the Italian coast and likewise the coast 
towns, so often plundered in the past, were comparatively free from 
attack. 

But the greatest calamity that could have befallen the Romans 
would have been to have their communications with Sicily interrupted. 
And not only was the line of communications by way of the Straits the 
chief one but the loss of that would have rendered the others impracti- 
cable. It is inconceivable how in that case the war could have been con- 
tinued; for the Roman fleet would have been compelled to base itself 
on Tarentum or Naples, positions too far away to be effective, while it 
would have been impossible to supply or reinforce the army in Sicily. 
The loss of Messana in fact would have brought the war to a speedy con- 
clusion and with complete victory for the Carthaginians. It was, there- 
fore, of the utmost importance to Rome that strong contingents of war- 
ships be kept at Messana and Rhegium in order to close the Straits com- 
pletely to hostile craft and protect their communications with Sicily. 
Polybius states that on one occasion the Roman communications were 
almost cut off, a sufficient hint that they were not preserved without 
challenge, yet there is no evidence that the interruption was of long 
duration or threatened to become serious. It is evident, therefore, that 

1 Thucyd. IV, 24; Siefert, Messena unci Rhegion, p. 15. Wer Rhegion unci Zancle (Messana) 
habe, auch Herr der wichtigen Meerenge sei, 



52 



±i 



Yes Signatum 



the contingents of the fleet stationed at Rhegium and Messana — probably 
ships furnished by these cities whose sailors were w T ell acquainted with 
those dangerous waters — formed a powerful force and maintained a 
vigilant guardianship unbroken for many years — a very notable 
achievement ! 

It is to that event that I venture to suggest the tyx^es of this brick 
allude. It was just the sort of an event that is apt to appeal strongly to 
the imagination, whether regarded merely as an achievement or of vital 
military and political importance, making its appeal, therefore, to all 
classes of persons. Events of that character are the ones most often 
chosen for medallic and kindred representations. It remains, then, to 
point out that the types of the brick appropriately represent the event. 

On the obverse of the brick are tw r o cocks in an attitude of alertness 
and vigilance ; they are not fighting nor eating. They are here the vigiles 
noctumi, as Pliny calls cocks, and with the two stars they symbolize the 
popular notion of the birds' constant vigilance, by night as well as by 
day: Pliny, N. H. X, 21, 24 Proxume gloriam sentiunt et hi nostri vigiles 
noctumi quos excitandis in opera mortalibus rumpendoque somno na- 
tura genuit. Norunt sidera et ternas distingunt lioras interdiu cantu. 




rig. 



2. Bronze coin, of Caiatia, 



The cock-and-star type is found on the bronze coins of Aquinum, 
Caiatia, Cales, Suessa, Teanum, and Telesia, where the accepted expla- 
nation, as given by Garrucci, 1 is, to employ the language of Mr. Head, 
(Hist. Num. p. 27), that "all these towns had probably concluded an 
alliance on favorable terms with Rome, by virtue of which they were per- 
mitted to issue bronze coins in their own names down to a comparatively 

1 Garrucci, Mouete d. Italia Antica, p. 77, under Aquinum : Aquino. . . . deve anuoverarsi 
fra le citta che ebbero un trattato di alleanza con Roma, come il fa suppore l'uso che gli Aqui- 
nati fan no della lingua latina nella mioneta, al pari del Teanesi, dei Caiatini, di Calvi e Sessa 
colonie latine, che battono un simile nummo col tipo del gallo (che canta, dietro un astro). 



A.ES SlGNATUM 53 

late period." Thus the cock of vigilance with the star symbolizes the 
unbroken watchfulness with which these communities engaged to guard 
their pact with Rome. {Fig. 2.) 

In the case of the brick, the two cocks are standing, turned toward 
each other, in an attitude of extreme alertness, ready to spring forward, 
but not at each other : there is not the remotest trace of anger apparent 
in the drawing of the two birds as is best shown by Garrucci's plate No. 
X Villi. Their attitude shows that the object of their vigilance lies at 
a point between them. The concrete forces whose watchfulness these 
cocks symbolize and also the object of that watchfulness are suggested 
by the reverse type, where we have two battle-ship rostra turned toward 
each other and toward a body of water that lies between them, the water 
being symbolized in the usual way by means of dolphins. These dolphins 
are represented swimming from opposite directions in between the ros- 
tra, positions which might be interpreted to symbolize recurrently flow- 
ing water and so specially appropriate for the Sicilian Straits. But it is 
never desirable to carry to the uttermost possible detail the interpre- 
tation of a symbolic group, nor is it here necessary to descend to details 
where the general meaning suggested for the type is so fitly expressed. 

The naval forces to which these rostra allude must, of course, be 
the warships the Romans kept stationed at Messana and Rhegium. 

It will help us to realize the importance of the event to which the 
types of this brick are here thought to allude if a similar event in the 
present European War is taken into consideration. One of the proudest 
achievements of the British navy has been its unbroken success in guard- 
ing the line of communication across the English Channel. It is per- 
f ectlv realized how vital this matter is to the English in order that thev 
may be able to reinforce and supply the huge armies operating in 
Prance ; and yet it is no more vital to them than it was for the Romans to 
protect a similar line of communication across the Straits with their 
army and navy operating in and around Sicily. As to the suitability of 
the types to commemmorate such an event there seems to be little ques- 
tion. In fact an artist at the present day would find the Cocks of Vigi- 
lance very suitable symbols of the alert watch the British fleet has kept 
on the Channel and the battleship rostra appropriate emblems of the 
force that has made it secure for the transport service. 

I will not hazard a suggestion as to the place where the brick might 
have been produced, except that it was probably at some Greek town not 
far from the scene of the event that formed the subject of the types. 



54 Aks Signatum 

Certainly I should not entertain the view that it was produced by the 
Roman government. 

VII. 

Six of the nine extant specimens of Greek bars have been discussed 
and explanations of their types suggested. This is a far larger number 
than the object of this paper required, for two or three of them would 
sufficiently illustrate their non-Roman origin, provided of course the 
explanations offered should in some cases at least prove to be correct. 
The remaining examples of aes signatum it is my purpose to discuss in 
a fuller treatise of the whole subject and hopefully in the near future. 

The most important bearing of the foregoing explanations is still 
upon the general question of the purpose of the bars ; for the whole ten- 
dency of the evidence afforded by those explanations is to deepen sus- 
picion of all the theories by which it has been attempted to connect these 
large bronze pieces in some way with the traditional aes signatum cur- 
rency of Rome or to show that they were at a later time issued by Rome 
from a government mint for use as money or for some other public pur- 
pose. For if the above interpretations are correct, hardly one of the six 
pieces discussed bears types that the Romans would have chosen as suit- 
able for a state issue of such a bar, whatever its purpose may have been. 
Nor would this conclusion be greatly weakened if it should be shown that 
some of the suggestions that have been ventured are untenable; for if, 
as stated before, it can be proved that even one of the bars because of the 
meaning of its types is indisputably of other than Roman origin and, 
therefore, could not have been produced at a Roman mint or have had 
anything to do with the Roman or any other currency system, then the 
wider conclusion is almost forced upon us that the Roman government 
had nothing to do with the production of the rest of them. This would 
certainly be true of the so-called Campanian bars ; and if this group be 
thrown out of the account, then the various theories that have hitherto 
been advanced and more or less widely accepted in regard to the extant 
specimens of the aes signatum must be greatly modified. For it is upon 
examples of this small group, the fine specimens in the best style of 
Greek art, such as the hog-and-elephant bar and especially the eagle-and- 
pegasus example with its suggestive inscription ROMAISTOM, that 
Mommsen, Garrucci, Milani, Haeberlin, as well as other earlier and later 
writers, have principally based their views of the whole subject. They 
have evidently held that in the main whatever could be established with 



Aes Signatum 55 

reference to these examples must hold true of the other and cruder speci- 
mens. And that position is undoubtedly correct ; so that vice versa what- 
ever of their theories may be disproved with reference to the u Cam- 
panian bars' ' must apply also to all of the quadrilateral bronze bricks. 

While that view of an identical purpose for all the extant bars, how- 
ever much they differ in the details of composition and types, seems un- 
doubtedly sound, yet the explanations of the types given above, because 
of their apparent allusion to important events, almost inevitably suggest 
the query whether the Greek bars may not have been intended primarily 
as commemorative plaques with no special utilitarian purpose. Indis- 
putably such commemorative plaques, approaching closely to the modern 
medallic plaque, have not hitherto been known to have existed among 
the Greeks and Romans. But from an early date the commemorative 
coin-type was employed sporadically by the Greeks, in fact much more 
extensively throughout the Greek world, there is reason to believe, than 
has been generally recognized. Commemorative types are particularly 
remarkable in the coinage of the western Greeks of Magna Graecia and 
Sicily. And it was the western Greeks, too, who extended the practice 
of issuing commemorative coins to include, besides local myths and 
local physiographic features, also the commemoration of historical 
events ; x or perhaps it would be better to say that, while the older Greek 
communities often celebrated important events by striking new coins 
with types presenting simply a more beautiful eftigy of the patron deity 
of the city to whose help their successful issue was ascribed, the western 
Greeks frequently struck coins whose main types or adjuncts more par- 
ticularly alluded to the specific event. 

Now these great bronze plaques are of course far removed from com- 
memorative coins. They might be regarded as holding a position some- 
where between the medallic coin and the fixed bronze commemorative 
tablet. Moreover, the mere fact that the other Greeks are not known to 
have made use of such monuments as medallic plaques would hardly 
constitute a fatal objection to a suggestion that such was the purpose 
for which these bars were produced by the Italian Greeks; for the in- 
dependence and originality of the Western Greeks were manifested in 
many ways and notably in certain extraordinary features of the coins 
struck for centuries in Magna Graecia as compared with the coins of the 
rest of the Greek world. Should one hesitate to regard as commemo- 
rative plaques those examples which were produced while the Greeks yet 

1 McDonald, Coin Types, pp. 02, 110; Reinack. L'Histoire par Jes Monnaies, p. ff. 



56 Aes Signatum 

retained their independence, less doubt might justifiably attach to those 
datable in a period subsequent to the conquest and the establishment of 
the Roman domination. For after the conquest those cities suffered con- 
siderable restriction of the right of coinage in the precious metals if they 
did not lose that right altogether, while the issues of bronze coins appar- 
ently ceased at some cities and became uncertain at others ; and thus de- 
prived of the opportunity of striking coins to commemorate an event, 
or give expression to a political sentiment, the cities, or rather private 
persons, might have had recourse to these plaques ; and the plaques would 
the more readily commend themselves as suitable for the purpose because 
they were so unlike the inhibited coin in form and size as to avoid any 
complication with the Roman authorities. 

While the suggestion just made arises naturally from the very char- 
acter of the explanations that have been given of some of the types, yet 
for reasons already stated it is hardly to be entertained seriously ; for it 
would explain the purpose of but a part of the extant bars, whereas it 
is most probable that they were all intended for the same use. 

VIII. 

Now if the Greek bars have with some degree of probability been 
shown to have originated elsewhere than at a Roman mint and under 
other than Roman influence, and therefore most likely intended for other 
use than as money, then certainly it becomes increasingly difficult to 
regard the bars attributed to Central and Northern Italy as specimens 
of aes signatum produced by either private persons or by communities 
for use as money. For the alloys of this latter class of bars lend no sup- 
port to the money theory, while their types are without significance and 
too commonplace to connect their issue with any particular places. 
There are, however, certain interesting facts observable in the devices 
found on some of these bars that may be mentioned chiefly because they 
seem to dispose of a few curious views that have been advanced regard- 
ing two varieties of them. 

On the grounds of provenience and the evidence of coins found along 
with certain of these bars various conjectures have been made as to the 
date and place of their production. And in the case of one group Dr. 
Haeberlin holds that the type also confirms the evidence of provenience. 
These are the fragments which bear the character A (PI. VII), inter- 
preted by Haeberlin as a ligature of TA, an abbreviation of Tachna, i. e., 
Tarquinii, the ancient site in whose vicinity, at Corneto, the bars were 



Aes Signatum 57 

found. It is needless to point out that a ligature of TA in such form 
would be very unusual, quite unique, I believe. 

No more acceptable is the view of Garrucci, followed by Willers, 
that the character is the simple Roman letter A, and that we have the 
mark of value < 1 1 1 — Asses tres. For that form of the letter A, with 
the cross-bar extending beyond the side-strokes, would also be unique, 
I believe ; at least I have been unable to find a parallel to it. Nor does the 
suggestion of Willers that the cross-bar was so extended in order to fill 
the space about the letter help matters. 

In this device and also in that of the two crescents (PL VIII, 4) we 
have the results of a simplification of earlier forms of the types, the evo- 
lution of which can be traced rather fully in the case of the latter. There 
was a tendency toward simplification of the so-called fish-skeleton or leaf 
types, 1 by reducing the number of " spines," or leaves, the admittedly 
later specimens having a smaller number in a given length than the 
earlier ones. No. 1, Plate VIII, has a much later form of the device 
with but two pairs of " spines" on the stem, heavy in form and approach- 
ing the general shape of crescents. Whether the entire bar had more of 
such members than appear on the extant fragment cannot of course be 
determined. No. 2 of the same plate probably had two pairs as there 
was likely another pair at a lower point on the stem and perhaps turned 
in the opposite direction. 

The next change in the device consisted in omitting the stem and to 
take its place in filling the field there was introduced a sort of star, pos- 
sibly two stars, PI. VIII, No. 3. In the final form there were but two 
pairs of spines or leaves conventionalized into crescent-shaped devices 
at the ends of the ingots, the intervening field being left plain (No. 4). 

It should also be noted that the curved ornament on the reverse of 
the small brick No. 2 is very similar to that on the broad No. 1. The two 
pieces were apparently produced in the same officina and mark a transi- 
tion from the large to a smaller form of ingot. 

A similar evolution of the ramo secco type is shown by Nos. 1, 2, and 
3, of PL VII resulting in the character resembling somewhat the Roman 
letter A. The central stem of the earlier device, whatever it may have 
been intended to represent, has here given way to a series of short lines, 
a sort of cross-hatching to fill up the field. And since the cross-bar of 
what has been often taken for the letter A is of the same length as the 

1 More likely, as Garrucci has pointed out {Man. <1. Ital. Ant., p. 5), the type represents a con- 
ventionalized leaf. 



58 Aes Sjgnatum 

other short lines above the fork, it is rather to be considered as merely 
one of those lines than as a part of a quite unusual if not impossible form 
of the letter or a ligature of TA. 

IX. 

It seems, therefore, that the arguments hitherto urged in favor of 
the theories that these bars are specimens of aes signatum issued by the 
state for ceremonial and monetarv uses are insufficient. On the other 
hand, for more or less positive considerations the conclusion, already 
tentatively advanced in regard to some varieties but generally rejected, 
that they were merely commercial ingots seems most likely to be correct. 
Some of them are ingots of unrefined copper or of scrap copper (aes 
collectaneum) probably destined for the refineries, others prepared by 
the refiners to supply the large number of artisans engaged in the manu- 
facture of the numerous articles, both useful and ornamental, then so 
commonly made of bronze. These ingots were, of course, the products 
of private enterprise; and the types they bear are to be regarded as 
trade-marks to identify the products of a manufacturer. 1 

The manufactures of bronze in antiquity were very extensive and of 
wide variety, as is attested by the writers and by the great accumulations 
of antique bronze objects brought together in our museums. Large fac- 
tories, such as modern times have produced, were then the exception, 
bronze manufactures for the most part coming from the hands of numer- 
ous artisans working in small shops of limited equipment and capacity. 
Since these artisans would rarely have either the ability to assay a mass 
of copper of unknown alloys or the means of refining it and then making 
up the alloy they required, it was plainly necessary for them to procure 
their supplies of copper or bronze in a state ready for use. Nor was that 
practice followed by the ancient artisan solely because of his defective 
equipment, but also because it was certainly cheaper; for which reason 
in our own times even Tars:e consumers not uncommonly follow the same 
practice and secure their supplies of bronze in the required alloy rather 
than make the alloys themselves. The Elder Plinv has allusions to nu- 
merous refineries (officinae aerariae) throughout Italy where copper 
pigs (panes) were refined and prepared in various alloys for the re- 
quirements of the makers of bronze articles and for artists. While it is 
not a fact to be insisted upon too strongly, yet it is interesting that the 

1 See Darmben? etSa^lio, Mel (ilium, p. 1865, for examples of large ingots of lead and other metals 
with trade-marks. 



Aes Signatum f>9 

analysis of some of the extant ingots shows a considerable agreement 
with the figures given by Pliny for certain alloys 1 produced for con- 
sumers in his time. For example, two fragments of these ingots show 
respectively 8.22% and 6.3% tin and no other alloy, which compares very 
well with Pliny's aes Campanum alloyed with 8% of tin (plumbum 
argent avium) by the refineries in the provinces of Italy except at Capua, 
where 10% of tin was used. 

The view that these bars were commercial ingots helps us to a ra- 
tional explanation of certain facts which have perplexed those who found 
it difficult to accept the theories that they were issued for use as coins or 
money and have misled the exponents of such views. For instance, it 
has been accepted as a sound principle that the discovery of bars along 
with specimens of the heavy bronze coins warranted the conclusion that 
the bars had been issued for use as money. Thus Willers states clearly : 
Aus diesehi wertvollen Fundnachricht (i. e., that bars with the character 
resembling the letter A were found together with heavy bronze coins) 
evgiebt sich also, dass unsere Barren neben Roll- und Schwerkupfer 
als Geld gedient haben und der Zeit von etiva 300 bis 250 v. Chr. ange- 
horen. 1 

On the contrary quite as logical and more probable is the inference 
that the heavy bronze coins were, at the time the hoard ivas buried, 
being converted to the same use as that for which the ingots were made. 
For in about 290 B. C, possibly as late as 286, the weight of the 
As was reduced by one half, and repeated heavy reductions brought the 
bronze coinage down to the triental standard by B. C. 268. It is not 
known that the Roman government made provision for the exchange, 
without loss to the holder, of the heavy coins for the new ones of lighter 
weight; it is not improbable that they did. But experience has shown 
that in spite of such measures a considerable proportion of the issues it 
is desired to replace will always be retained by the public. This result 
was assured in the case of the Roman aes grave by the very rapidity with 
which repeated reductions of standard followed each other. And after 
the coins of the older and heavier standard had become worth as much 

1 Pliny JV. H. XXXIV, 820, 20; aes Campanum, " utensilibus vasis probatissimum ".; two va- 
rieties, (1) produced at Capua, 90% copper and 10% tin (plumbum argentarium), (2) produced 
else wb ere in Italy, only 8% of tin. 

Aes statuarium, 12^/2% of tin, one third of the whole being of scrap copper (aes collectaneum) . 
Aes Graecanicum, 85% copper, 10% lead (nigrum plumbum), 5% tin (plumbum argentarium) . 
Aes ollarium, copper and 3% to 4% of tin. 

2 Willers, Italische Bronzebarren , Num. Zeitsch., 1904, p. 28. 



60 Aes Signatum 

in the metal market as when exchanged for the new and smaller coins, or 
possibly more, it was but natural that large quantities of the former 
should be converted to use in the arts ; and the finding of aes grave, some 
of them in fragments, along with commercial ingots of bronze shows that 
such was the practice. 

Again, the fact that most of the bars have been found in a fragmen- 
tary state has been considered by many scholars as strong proof that 
they were issued for use as money ; for it is held that, whenever it was 
desired to obtain a sum less than the value of an entire bar, the practice 
was to break off from it a piece of the necessary weight and value. The 
absurdity of this theory has been pointed out repeatedly and its chief 
v/eakness has been stated above. Considering the bars as money, in any 
sense, the breaking of them into fragments would be most remarkable ; 
but it is not difficult to understand why commercial ingots should be 
found in fragments ; it is in fact just what an expert worker in bronze 
would expect. For at the present time, with greatly improved facilities 
for melting bronze, including an abundance of cheap gas, it is the very 
common practice to reduce the ingots to fragments because the smaller 
pieces pack better in the crucible and at the same time the surface 
directly exposed to the heat is thereby greatly increased. 

The form in which bronze and copper appeared on the Italian mar- 
kets ready for the artisan's use is something we do not know. But it is 
well known that the form of the commercial ingots of gold and silver was 
quadrilateral and that such ingots were technically known as " bricks," 
lateres. 1 It does not follow, of course, that the bronze ingots, refined and 
in the various alloys the trade required, had the same form and designa- 
tion as those of the more valuable metals. But if we accept the views of 
some investigators, there was a time in Italy when copper was considered 
much more a precious metal than it was in historical times, and that is 
probably true; so that it is not a far-fetched inference that the term 
later as well as the brick-form was first employed for bronze and was 
subsequently adopted for gold and silver ingots when these metals be- 
came more abundant in the country. However that may have been these 
bars have a form quite foreign to that of any acknowledged coin in an- 
tiquity, while they do have one of the recognized metal ingot forms. 

1 Compare the gold bricks found at Sirmio, now in British and Pesth museums. See also 
Varro, Vita, P. 7Y., in Nonius, p. ~>20: lateres argentei .... in aerarium conditi. Pliny, X. H., 
XXXIII, 3, 17; C. Caesar primo introitu urbis civili hello suo ex aerario protulit laterum aureorum 
XV, argenteorum XXX. et in rmmerato |CCC|; and Tacitus, Ann.., XVI, 1, 2. 



Aes Sign at um 61 

That among the Greeks the refiner 's trade-mark should have under- 
gone a marked development and become a device adapted to the size and 
form of the comparatively small ingot prepared for the manufacturer 
and bronze founder and that the device should have been executed by a 
really clever artist can hardly occasion any surprise ; while the influence 
of contemporary political events upon the subjects chosen for the de- 
vices was certainly nothing inconsistent with the independent thought 
and practice of the western Greeks. 



Plate I 





Three-quarters actual size. 



Plate II 











\ 






i? 





Three-quarters actual size. 



TYPE OF TRIPOD — BARLEY-EAR BAR RECONSTRUCTED FROM TWO FRAGMENTS 

OF DIFFERENT BARS. 



Plate III 





Three-quarters actual size. 



Plate IV 





Three-quarters actual size. 



Plate V 





Three-quarters actual size. 



Plate VI 





Three-quarters actual size. 



Plate VII 







Three-quarters actual size 



4 



Plate VIII 









Three-quarters actual size. 



